VCPR and Telemedicine Rules in Indiana
Indiana defines a VCPR in language that mirrors the federal FDA standard: the veterinarian must have recently seen, and be personally acquainted with the keeping and care of, the animal through an examination or through medically appropriate premises visits.
The statute never mentions electronic means, so whether an examination can happen remotely is unresolved on the text.
A bill that would create an electronic path, SB 228, is reported as currently stalled, leaving that baseline in force.
Maintenance is also unaddressed.
The definition has not changed since 2008.
Verify before you rely on this
At a glance
The veterinarian must have assumed responsibility for clinical judgments with the client's agreement, and must have sufficient knowledge of the animal to initiate a diagnosis, gained by recently seeing and being personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal through either an examination of the animal or medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept — the text never says whether that examination may be conducted remotely.
Not addressed in the current statute. A bill that would allow VCPR establishment via telemedicine, SB 228, is reported by a secondary source as "currently stalled," meaning the ambiguous statutory baseline above still governs unless and until that changes.
Not addressed — § 25-38.1-1-14.5 contains no telehealth, telemedicine or electronic-means term of any kind, for either establishing or maintaining the relationship.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not addressed in § 25-38.1-1-14.5.
Added by P.L. 58-2008, SEC. 14 (2008) — unchanged since; SB 228, which would add an electronic-establishment path, is reported as currently stalled.
The text is silent on modality — State statute.
Ind. Code § 25-38.1-1-14.5, the veterinarian-client-patient relationship definition in the preamble and definitions chapter of Indiana's Veterinarians article
What Indiana's definition actually requires
Indiana stacks two elements a practice has to satisfy before the relationship exists: the veterinarian has assumed responsibility for clinical judgments with the client's agreement, and the veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the animal to initiate a diagnosis.
That second element is the one a telemedicine plan turns on, and the statute names how it can be met — 'by either of the following': (A) an examination of the animal, or (B) medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept.
Route (B) is explicit about modality — a physical visit to the premises — so it offers no telemedicine argument.
Route (A) says only 'an examination,' without saying whether that has to happen in person, so a remote exam's viability turns on that one undefined word.
A practice building an intake policy can document which route each client file rests on, but only route (A) leaves room for a telemedicine argument, and the statute does not resolve even that.
“The veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal by either of the following: (A) An examination of the animal. (B) By recently seeing and being personally acquainted with the keeping and care of representative animals and associated husbandry practices by making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept.”
The statute is silent, and a bill to change that has stalled
No telehealth, telemedicine or electronic-means term appears anywhere in the definition — the absence is verifiable on the face of the text, and it cuts neither for nor against a remote-only exam.
That silence is the finding: a practice cannot point to statutory language authorizing a video exam to satisfy the examination or premises-visit requirement, and Indiana cannot point to language forbidding one either.
The one development worth flagging is legislative rather than codified: SB 228, which would create an explicit electronic-establishment path, is reported by a secondary source as currently stalled.
Until and unless that changes, the definition a practice has to work from is the unresolved one quoted above.
“currently stalled”
Follow-up care is required; the modality is not addressed
Once the relationship exists, the statute imposes two further duties rather than a maintenance rule tied to any modality: the veterinarian must be readily available, or have arranged emergency coverage, for follow-up evaluation if there is an adverse reaction or the treatment regimen fails, and, where appropriate, the veterinarian must have arranged continuing care with another licensed veterinarian who has access to the animal's medical record.
Neither clause says how that follow-up or continuing-care contact has to happen, so nothing here opens a door to telehealth at the veterinarian's discretion, and nothing closes one either.
A practice relying on telemedicine for follow-up, or arranging relief coverage with another veterinarian, is operating in the same unaddressed space as the establishment question above.
“The veterinarian is readily available or has arranged for emergency coverage for follow-up evaluation if there is an adverse reaction or failure of the treatment regimen.”
Unchanged since 2008, with SB 228 stalled
The VCPR definition was added by P.L. 58-2008, SEC. 14 and has not been amended since — it predates the COVID-era telehealth debate and every state change that followed it elsewhere.
The only live development is SB 228, which the research file records as currently stalled rather than enacted.
A practice relying on any summary describing Indiana as having, or as about to have, an electronic-establishment path is relying on a bill's status rather than the text actually in force.
Check the bill's current status and confirm the operative statute with the Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners before building anything on it.
There are two VCPRs, and the federal one does not move
What This Page Does — and Doesn’t — Cover
This page describes Indiana’s own text — Ind. Code § 25-38.1-1-14.5, the veterinarian-client-patient relationship definition in the preamble and definitions chapter of Indiana's Veterinarians article as read for this series, current as of September 2026, with the provision itself last changed Added by P.L. 58-2008, SEC. 14 (2008) — unchanged since; SB 228, which would add an electronic-establishment path, is reported as currently stalled. It does not cover licensure, scope of practice, or the terms of a specific prescription, and it is not a compliance sign-off for a telemedicine service.
VCPR and telemedicine rules are the fastest-moving area this site covers — nine states changed theirs between 2024 and 2026, and bills are live in others. Confirm the current text with the board before you build an intake policy, a prescribing workflow or a remote-care service on it, and read the federal note above alongside it rather than instead of it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an Indiana veterinarian establish a VCPR over video?
The statute does not say.
Ind.
Code § 25-38.1-1-14.5 requires that the veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal through an examination or medically appropriate and timely premises visits, but it never mentions electronic means as an alternative and never bars them outright.
That leaves the question genuinely unresolved on the text.
A bill that would resolve it, SB 228, is reported as stalled.
Confirm current status with the Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners before building a telemedicine intake workflow on this rule.
What would Indiana's SB 228 change?
Per a secondary source, SB 228 would allow a VCPR to be established via telemedicine, which the current statute does not address one way or the other.
The research this page relies on describes the bill as currently stalled, not enacted, so it has not changed what the statute requires.
Unless and until that changes, the unresolved baseline in Ind.
Code § 25-38.1-1-14.5 governs.
Check the bill's current status with the Indiana General Assembly before relying on it.
Once an Indiana VCPR exists, what can be done by telemedicine?
The statute does not address maintenance modality at all.
It requires that the veterinarian remain available, or have arranged emergency coverage, for follow-up evaluation, and that continuing care be arranged with another licensed veterinarian where appropriate — but it says nothing about whether that contact may happen remotely.
Section 25-38.1-1-14.5 itself opens no such door and closes none either; no board rule addressing this was read for this page.
Verify with the Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners how it expects an existing relationship to be maintained.
Does satisfying Indiana's VCPR rule make a practice federally compliant?
No, and this is the trap.
The federal VCPR at 21 CFR 530.3(i) is a separate relationship governing extralabel drug use and Veterinary Feed Directives, it requires that the veterinarian has recently seen the animal or visited the premises, and the FDA has said it cannot be met solely through telemedicine.
It applies regardless of what Indiana permits, and extralabel use is routine rather than an edge case.
Check both, and confirm specifics with the Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
When was Indiana's VCPR statute last amended?
Ind.
Code § 25-38.1-1-14.5 was added by P.L. 58-2008, SEC. 14 and has not been amended since.
SB 228, which would add an electronic-establishment path, is reported as currently stalled rather than enacted.
Any summary describing Indiana as already permitting virtual establishment is describing the bill, not the statute in force.
Confirm both the bill's status and the current statutory text with the Indiana Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
More Indiana VCPR & Telemedicine Resources
Sourced from Indiana’s own statute or board rule (see the citations above). Verified September 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice — confirm current rules with the Indiana board before relying on them.