Home › Forums › Open Discussion › King County forcing veterinarians to turn over your animals' medical records
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 14, 2014 at 2:37 am #611666
LenaParticipantKing Country is proposing a law that would make it that all veterinarians would have to turn over their records of patients to the county to enforce licensing. This is a huge invasion of privacy and merges medicine and government in a very unhealthy way. It also could be used to crack down on folks who believe in a more minimal vaccine schedule, or have more than the “allowed” three animals. Medicine should be kept between client and doctor even among animals . Not to mention the huge among of time this will take for vet practices to pass all their records over. Please sign this petition!
June 14, 2014 at 3:47 am #809599
hammerheadParticipantThank you for the info. Signed
June 14, 2014 at 5:41 am #809600
mehud7ParticipantThank you for the information Lena. I understand that local animal control agencies need the revenue from licensing fees to care for the animals at their shelters. There must be other ways to collect those fees besides invading peoples’ privacy or creating an extraordinary amount of work (at a cost) for clinic staff. Petition signed and shared.
June 14, 2014 at 2:48 pm #809601
wakefloodParticipantI don’t disagree that this method of data collection might sound onerous but I’m going to do a little research before I sign.
I would like shelters and animal control to have the funds they need to do their jobs and let’s face it, pet owners are creating the need for those services, I’m fine with them being the source for the revenue too. That’s only fair. If you choose to own a pet, you’re choosing to take on responsibility for it.
If it didn’t include the medical records, I’d be ok with it.
This issue has some parallels to the Electronic Patient Records process going on now. Virtually everyone will have a searchable medical history soon. Data can be used many ways. If it’s good for humans is it bad for pets? Bad for both?
June 14, 2014 at 7:24 pm #809602
anonymeParticipantI’m all for the enforcement of pet licensing, but I think this approach is all wrong. The burden should not be placed on veterinarians, who will have to pass the cost on to (mostly) responsible pet owners.
Go after backyard breeders and off-leash scofflaws for desperately needed shelter funds. It should be law that any and all litters of puppies or kittens must be registered and licensed by the breeder/owner. The off-leash problem just gets worse, due to non-enforcement. There should be no warnings, just whopping fines. Violations might also warrant community service in the form of working at a shelter cleaning cages. Backyard breeders should be made to assist with euthanasia so that they can see first hand the end results of their irresponsible greed.
Dumping the problem on veterinarians is not just, and will not be effective.
June 14, 2014 at 8:04 pm #809603
HomerParticipantUhmmmmm…just a bit different for animals’ records vs. humans.
Alright, how about a special animal control tax (used for licensing, off-leash patrol, shelters, etc.) applied ONLY to those that have pets? That should take care of this issue.
June 14, 2014 at 8:11 pm #809604
wakefloodParticipantHow do you confirm pet ownership, Homer? And only currently living ones?
June 14, 2014 at 8:45 pm #809605
anonymeParticipantThe only way to confirm ownership is through licensing, which means the only people punished (taxed) would be those who have already demonstrated responsible ownership by paying license fees. Neither fair nor effective, IMO.
BTW, there is an area for reporting a deceased pet on the license renewal form.
June 14, 2014 at 10:09 pm #809606
wakefloodParticipantExactly the point if my question, anon. :-). Ok, so asking we’re going to need a method for capturing as many actual owners as possible to maximize revenue. Probably through multiple access points, including vets, responsible owners, reporting by neighbors to a website, animal control officers…etc, etc.
That will probably get 70-80% max.
That work for everyone?
And I like the idea if charging the puppy & kitty breeders a big chunk for every litter.
June 14, 2014 at 10:42 pm #809607
seaopgalParticipantI can’t get too worked up about this. First of all, the ordinance wouldn’t exactly require vets to “turn over medical records,” but simply to report rabies vaccination data for comparison with county licensing data. It’s been an effective tool in other jurisdictions, and I doubt if any vets have gone out of business.
Secondly, it bothers me to hear vets say they don’t want to take two seconds even to suggest that their clients get licenses. (Yet they seem perfectly happy to spend staff time and resources to scan microchips/contact owners/hold for animal control when people bring in stray, unlicensed animals? Doesn’t compute.) Ditto for shelters, pet stores, and breeders … they certainly flog the microchipping services, so they can also take a few minutes to collect/forward licensing applications/fees.
Maybe I’m cranky about this because I’m tired of people who want government to do everything (“take this cat I don’t want anymore” … “protect me from loose dogs” … “rescue those abused animals” … “find my lost ferret” … “don’t euthanize any strays”) but don’t want to pay taxes OR follow the law OR support agency-specific funding schemes. Present company excepted, I’m sure.
A couple of articles that present both sides:
June 14, 2014 at 11:51 pm #809608
LenaParticipantI’m all for funding animal control and licensing pets. Mine are licensed. What I am afraid of is that
1. Owners may be hesitant to bring animals into a vet if they are going to be reported for not having a license or current vaccines. Our job is not to play animal enforcement, it is to make sick animals better. It is also very important to me that my clients trust me and I put a lot of effect into that. Having to turn over any part of records goes against this. We should be able to have the same patient confidentiality as human docs if we choose to.
2. I am afraid that this could be used for enforcement of vaccination. There are reasons certain animals should not get vaccines such as current chemo treatments, autoimmune disease, past vaccine reactions, other sickness. This needs to be a decision between the vet and the animal’s person and government should not be involved in it.
I agree put more money and time into enforcement of the current laws.
June 15, 2014 at 2:43 pm #809609
JoBParticipantanother way to frame this is that King Country will finally be able to verify that the rabies tag number you list on your application actually matches the rabies vaccination record for your pet.
where does everyone think those numbers come from anyway?
June 15, 2014 at 4:49 pm #809610
JayDeeParticipantOK, the first time I took my cats to the vet, I am pretty certain he sold me tags. This year, no. So I think my cats are unlicensed. When I went to the County’s site I thought I saw that if you live in Seattle, you get a City of Seattle license. Can anyone clear this up? I’d like to get them up to date but am unclear on where to get the license. Thanks and pardon my ignorance–the sister cats are my first pets.
June 15, 2014 at 5:31 pm #809611
hammerheadParticipantIf you live in the Seattle City limits. You would go to Seattle Animal Shelter, on Elliot Ave. This where the issue of over vaccinating comes into question. If you have indoor only cat, does it really need a rabies vaccine every year or FELV vaccine?
I am not a fan of vaccines, because of the long term effects on animals.
June 15, 2014 at 6:10 pm #809612
anonymeParticipantthe vet gives you the tags when your pet is vaccinated; this does not mean your pet is licensed. Two different things. You can apply for a pet license online using the tag numbers, you don’t have to go to a physical location. You’ll get a notice by mail when it’s time to renew. Pretty easy, really.
My understanding is that Rabies is the only vaccine required by law, and don’t think it’s every year – but I could be wrong.
I am confused about the scope of the proposed law. If you reside within Seattle City limits, your pet is licensed through Seattle Animal Control – not King County. I’m not sure how or if requirements currently overlap, or if the law (if passed) would apply to Seattle residents.
June 15, 2014 at 6:43 pm #809613
JoBParticipanti am pretty sure the vaccinations are once every two years..
and once you have a license, the city will remind you every year that it needs to be renewed.
if you are elderly or disabled the fee is very very small.
June 15, 2014 at 6:53 pm #809614
yes2wsParticipantThumbs up (and thanks) to Lena; post 11.
June 15, 2014 at 7:03 pm #809615
TanDLParticipantI don’t think vets should be in the business of law enforcement. They have enough to do on a daily basis without more record-keeping piled on by the County who suddenly thinks it has found an easy way to increase tax revenue.
Seattle vet clinics will have to be sure their entire staff is paid at least $15 an hour in the near future, something that King County won’t have to worry about with their workers outside Seattle, and now we want to pile more work on those predominately small businesses in this City so that even more costs will have to be passed onto the consumer? Who will ultimately end up paying for the increased costs in reporting?
Should mechanics and auto body shops be required to keep and turn over records on car license tabs? Should all businesses who accept checks be required to keep records and report if a person’s ID has expired? How far do we want to go with the “tattle-tale” state?
As far as any concern over rabies… in 2012 65 animals in King County were tested for rabies – including 10 cats and 2 dogs. Only one positive test result was noted and that positive was in a little brown bat. Dog rabies has not been found in Washington State since the 1950s except for one dog that was brought in sick from California in 1960 and one cat that tested positive in Walla Walla County in 2002. http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/zoonotics/rabies/summary.aspx
The rabies program in this County, and state for that matter, is working just fine as it is and I don’t think it’s right to burden Vets with more reporting and paperwork so the County can collect more taxes.
I agree with “Lena” that decisions on what’s best for the animal patients shouldn’t be in the hands of government. I’ll say it again… the vaccine programs seem to be working fine as they are and the last thing we want to do is discourage people from taking their animals for veterinary treatment when they need it.
June 16, 2014 at 3:31 am #809616
guidosmomMemberThis is beyond ridiculous and will probably prevent a lot of people from taking their dogs to vets. I am all for licensing pets and vaccinating healthy pets against rabies. Unfortunately some of us, yes, I am sure the minority, have pets who can no longer handle vaccinations due to age, adverse reactions, etc, and this is a very unfair position to put veterinarians into.
June 16, 2014 at 5:09 am #809617
HMC RichParticipantI think this is a bad idea.
I have two house cats that stay in the house. However my two dogs do not and they are licensed.
I have a better idea. We have a lot of parks. They already get cared for through our tax dollars. Well mostly. Anyway, Make some more dog parks and charge people a nominal fee. In actuality you would be charging the human because my big dog can jump a 5 foot fence. I like Westcrest but it is quite far away. I would be happy to pay 50 cents a visit. I spend that in fuel driving there. Also doesn’t affect the non pet owner. Of course they might decide to do it for humans one day too!
Have an ORCA card for pets!!
June 16, 2014 at 12:54 pm #809618
JoBParticipantok.. this isn’t about forcing people to vaccinate their pets..
and it isn’t about forcing vets to become cops
it’s about money..
currently 21-26% of us .. depending upon the statistic … are actually complying with the law and funding animal control.
whether that is 21-26% of us who are pet owners or 21-26% of the number of rabies vaccines given by vets in King county.. i don’t know.. but either way it’s a sobering stat.
for the vets.. it’s still about money.
They worry that if vets are required to report rabies vaccines, pet owners will use pop up clinics to vaccinate their pets.. not veterinary clinics.
follow the dollars folks..
i for one am tired of picking up the tab for people who won’t comply with the law.
double the animal control dollars won’t translate to double the enforcement… but it might be enough to put some teeth in the leash laws.
June 16, 2014 at 1:20 pm #809619
NorthbyNorthWestParticipantIt always comes back to leash laws with the forum regulars here, doesn’t it?
June 16, 2014 at 2:22 pm #809620
TanDLParticipantMaybe we should also put the burden on pet stores or grocery stores that sell animal products, not just vets. Put a tax on dog/cat leashes and collars, dog and cat food, maybe on food bowls, waste bags and toys. The pet food store industry in Seattle is already going to see major price increases due to the mandated $15 an hour for employees who generally make less than that, so what the heck. Let’s just make it as expensive as possible to give an animal a home so that shelters will be even more full of unwanted pets and King County will have to think of ways to ask for even more money to handle it. This could all have a negative impact on innocent animals that just want a caring home to live out their lives.
There must be other ways to help out here. Let’s think about it: How about a fee for breeders every time they put a litter up for sale. That would definitely be a good idea as stated earlier and big fees for stores that sell pets might be a great incentive to slow down puppy mills.
An Orca card for pet parks and other small perks isn’t a bad idea at all, HMC and getting more dog parks and pet walking trails out of the deal could be a big bonus.
Maybe King county should set up larger volunteer programs. I hear of high school kids all the time who are looking to volunteer with pets. How about a program for volunteers to travel in packs at local parks and retail centers to educate pet owners about leash programs? Or a program where citizens could voluntarily purchase extra waste bags with a small tax on them to donate to dog parks and neighborhoods to encourage people to pick up poo?
How about schools do penny drives to help out shelters? What kid doesn’t want to help out pets and donating pennies is pretty easy for a community.
Maybe pet owners could drop a quarter in a box to walk their pets on leashes at local parks. It just seems like there are a multitude of creative ways to try and raise revenue or cut costs with positive community involvement that are never tried before punitive measures are put into place. Licensing and raising money doesn’t always have to be a punitive, need more enforcement, big fines, gonna’ cost-you-big-time for animal companionship or rat-out-your neighbors kind of program.
June 16, 2014 at 3:06 pm #809621
JoBParticipantwhat burden are we putting on vets when we ask them to turn over the records they already keep on Rabies vaccinations?
and why don’t we think it would be a good thing for all pet owners who already vaccinate their animals to license them as well?
i have no problem with a tax on pet supplies earmarked to animal shelters
but i do have a problem with the 25 cent box to walk your pets on leashes..
because the only ones who would be paying that fee are those who already walk their dogs on leash legally.. and who for the most part already license their pets.
asking us to pay double or triple or quadruple to finance those who aren’t complying with the law now doesn’t sit well with me.
June 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm #809622
elikapekaParticipantPetition signed. This is a bad idea. As TanDL said, what’s next? Your mechanic verifying your car tabs? Things like this tend to be a slippery slope.
I don’t like the fact that so many people are avoiding licensing, but making vet clinics the enforcement police is not the answer. The vet’s main concern is for health and welfare of the animals, and anything that would possibly result in people being afraid to visit a vet for fear of the county coming after them is a non-starter to me. What if you have one more cat than the law allows? Will they come after you for that?
Instead of coercion, perhaps the county could set up a system where people could purchase their license at the vet’s office. It would not be required to receive care and not reported if the client declined, but if it’s easy to do while you’re there anyway, more people might go ahead and do it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.