The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) plans to create a task force to study how accrediting foreign veterinary medical programs might impact the U.S. profession and its quality of standards.

The charge comes from a resolution passed by the AVMA House of Delegates, which met July 15-16 in St. Louis. While the task force exists as a mere recommendation from the House, the final go-ahead from the AVMA Executive Board is a formality; the board has publicly expressed support for the initiative.   

At an estimated cost of $25,000, the task force will review procedures of the Council on Education (COE), the AVMA’s accrediting arm charged by the United States Department of Education to ensure quality veterinary education in America.

Resolution 5 — brought by several state veterinary medical associations — calls for evaluating the merits of foreign school accreditation by answering seven questions:

• What is the logistical burden in time and expense required by the AVMA and COE in accrediting foreign schools, now and for the next 10 years?
• How will the continued accreditation of foreign schools impact the financial viability of the veterinary profession in the United States?
• What is the impact on U.S. standards resulting from the increasing accreditation of foreign schools?
• What are the potential adverse effects on standards in the U.S. by waiving the certification test (ECVFG or PAVE) for graduates of foreign schools?
• What concerns are anticipated from international pressure on the COE to have their schools accredited?
• How does the accreditation of foreign schools serve the needs and interests of the U.S. public?
• How does the accreditation of foreign schools serve the needs and interest of AVMA’s membership?

What the task force won’t explore: Any effect that the COE’s foray into foreign accreditation might have on the economic viability of U.S. veterinarians, the vast majority of whom are AVMA members. Notably absent from the resolution is the question: “How will the continuation of accrediting foreign schools influence the ongoing veterinarian workforce concerns in the United States?”

That’s per the advice of AVMA legal counsel Isham Jones. Gathered in closed session before the start of the House of Delegates meeting, Jones purportedly warned delegates that throttling back on foreign accreditation to protect the economic health of U.S. practitioners might run afoul of U.S. antitrust laws. The talk resulted in a resolution altered from its original and stripped of language pertaining to the economic environment.

Once a foreign program earns AVMA accreditation, graduates of that program are on equal footing with graduates of U.S.-based schools. Specifically, accreditation allows a foreign program’s graduates to bypass equivalency tests designed to assess competency and sit for the same licensing examinations posed to graduates of U.S.-based programs.

Critics contend that extending accreditation to foreign schools eliminates the equivalency exam hurdle, thereby better positioning the foreign graduates to enter the U.S. workforce. These concerns climaxed early this year with the accreditation of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the first veterinary program in Latin America that the COE has considered. To date, the COE accredits 11 foreign veterinary schools worldwide. Most received the council’s nod during the past decade, as part of the AVMA’s self-imposed charge to become the “premier” global accrediting authority.

Efforts to spread U.S. accreditation internationally are lauded by many who believe the AVMA has a duty to raise global standards for veterinary medicine. Yet an increasingly vocal faction of veterinarians question whether the AVMA's international accreditation efforts might be burdensome to the volunteer-based COE and whether its seal of approval can truly ensure that accredited foreign programs churn out graduates practicing medicine at the same level as their U.S.-based counterparts. Additionally, critics believe that the COE is, in fact, too closely guided by the AVMA's leadership, considering that the group is supposed to act autonomously.

Another objection to the AVMA's role on the international scene comes via concerns that extending accreditation to foreign programs could result in a surge of veterinarians entering the United States, which could increase competition for American practitioners who already are saddled with low starting salaries and heavy educational debt. While these concerns manifested with the accreditation of UNAM, which graduates some 350 veterinarians annually, they are amplified by news that a second Mexican-based program is vying for a COE site visit — an initial step in the accreditation process.

In response, the AVMA released figures to delegates showing that 160 veterinarians from U.S. accredited foreign programs and 500 veterinarians from non-accredited foreign programs entered the U.S. workforce in 2010. Roughly 2,460 veterinarians graduate from U.S.-based programs annually.

“The overriding question is, will the profession and the AVMA best be served by the AVMA continuing to accredit foreign schools by other countries … or best be served by assisting and supporting efforts to accredit their own schools? That's the question that must be answered,” stated Dr. Billy Martindale, Texas delegate to the House.

The Texas Veterinary Medical Association (TVMA) has been at the forefront of efforts to scrutinize the AVMA’s mission to accredit internationally. During the House of Delegate’s meeting in January, the TVMA proposed a resolution calling for the AVMA Executive Board to assign a task force to determine the impact, via risk-benefit analysis, that accrediting internationally might have on the U.S. profession. The resolution failed and resulted in a backlash, with one delegate publicly stating that the measure smelled of prejudice and discrimination.