A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Practitioner Enforcement and Tracking of Substances Act or the PETS Act. The bill aims to increase compliance with prescription drug monitoring program requirements by veterinarians. It states that veterinarians must consult the drug monitoring program before prescribing controlled substances and report dispensing them. For veterinary patients, veterinarians must report information relating to the owner or primary caretaker instead of the animal. Additionally, the bill requires practitioners or their designees to report any non-fatal overdose event requiring their intervention to the drug monitoring program within 72 hours. It also changes a provision regarding drug misuse and abuse from optional to mandatory.
Yes
- Scored +3
Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths?
Improves tracking of controlled substances and mandates reporting of non-fatal overdoses to prescription drug monitoring programs.
- Scored +2
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Increases oversight and transparency concerning controlled substance prescriptions and non-fatal overdoses.
- Scored +1
Does this give the federal government more power?
Increases federal mandates regarding state prescription drug monitoring program requirements for veterinarians.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
Requires reporting pet owners' personal information to state databases when animals receive controlled substances.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(b) requires practitioners or their designees to report any non-fatal overdose event that required their intervention to the drug monitoring program not later than 72 hours after the event occurred. This could benefit the public by tracking non-fatal overdoses more quickly and thoroughly.
-
Section 2(a) adds veterinarians to the definition of a dispenser and states that veterinarians are required to consult the drug monitoring program prior to prescribing any controlled substance and report dispensing controlled substances to the same extent as any other practitioner. This could help hold medical professionals accountable and track controlled substances more effectively.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(a) requires veterinarians to report information relating to the owner or primary caretaker of the veterinary patient to the drug monitoring program instead of the veterinary patient. This places reporting burdens and tracking requirements specifically onto pet owners and caretakers.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Healthcare
- Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Improves tracking of controlled substances and mandates reporting of non-fatal overdoses to prescription drug monitoring programs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Increases oversight and transparency concerning controlled substance prescriptions and non-fatal overdoses. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal mandates regarding state prescription drug monitoring program requirements for veterinarians. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Requires reporting pet owners' personal information to state databases when animals receive controlled substances.
- 5/21/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House