News Alerts

Green River Flooding - Are you Ready?

Prepare now for a higher risk of flooding. Serious flooding may occur in some areas of King County this winter. Homes, farms and businesses in the Green River Valley are particularly at risk. Residents should prepare now for the winter season. Download the full brochure.

Press release – July 29, 2009

FTC Announces Expanded Business Education Campaign on 'Red Flags' Rule

To assist small businesses and other entities, the Federal Trade Commission staff will redouble its efforts to educate them about compliance with the "Red Flags" Rule and ease compliance by providing additional resources and guidance to clarify whether businesses are covered by the Rule and what they must do to comply. To give creditors and financial institutions more time to review this guidance and develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs, the FTC will further delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009.

The Red Flags Rule is an anti-fraud regulation, requiring “creditors” and “financial institutions” with covered accounts to implement programs to identify, detect, and respond to the warning signs, or “red flags,” that could indicate identity theft. The financial regulatory agencies, including the FTC, developed the Rule, which was mandated by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). FACTA’s definition of “creditor” includes any entity that regularly extends or renews credit – or arranges for others to do so – and includes all entities that regularly permit deferred payments for goods or services. Accepting credit cards as a form of payment does not, by itself, make an entity a creditor. “Financial institutions” include entities that offer accounts that enable consumers to write checks or make payments to third parties through other means, such as other negotiable instruments or telephone transfers.

The FTC’s Red Flags Web site, www.ftc.gov/redflagsrule, offers resources to help entities determine if they are covered and, if they are, how to comply with the Rule. It includes an online compliance template that enables companies to design their own Identity Theft Prevention Program through an easy-to-do form, as well as articles directed to specific businesses and industries, guidance manuals, and Frequently Asked Questions to help companies navigate the Rule.

Although many covered entities have already developed and implemented appropriate, risk-based programs, some – particularly small businesses and entities with a low risk of identity theft – remain uncertain about their obligations. The additional compliance guidance that the Commission will make available shortly is designed to help them. Among other things, Commission staff will create a special link for small and low-risk entities on the Red Flags Rule Web site with materials that provide guidance and direction regarding the Rule. The Commission has already posted FAQs that address how the FTC intends to enforce the Rule and other topics – www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/redflagsrule/faqs.shtm. The enforcement FAQ states that Commission staff would be unlikely to recommend bringing a law enforcement action if entities know their customers or clients individually, or if they perform services in or around their customers’ homes, or if they operate in sectors where identity theft is rare and they have not themselves been the target of identity theft.

The three-month extension, coupled with this new guidance, should enable businesses to gain a better understanding of the Rule and any obligations that they may have under it. These steps are consistent with the House Appropriations Committee’s recent request that the Commission defer enforcement in conjunction with additional efforts to minimize the burdens of the Rule on health care providers and small businesses with a low risk of identity theft problems. Today’s announcement that the Commission will delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009, does not affect other federal agencies’ enforcement of the original November 1, 2008, compliance deadline for institutions subject to their oversight.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Red Flags Rule Effective for Veterinarians November 1, 2009

The FTC’s Red Flags Rule becomes mandatory for all businesses and organizations November 1, 2009. Veterinary practices must comply if they extend credit to clients or accept pet health insurance.

What are red flags?

According to the FTC, red flags are “potential patterns, practices, or specific activities indicating the possibility of identity theft.” These could include alerts, notifications or warnings from a credit reporting company, suspicious documents or documents that don’t match the person, suspicious personal identifying information like an altered ID, or suspicious account activity. When identifying red flags, consider the nature of your business and the type of identity theft to which you might be vulnerable. Most veterinary practices are low risk businesses. Even so, compliance is required.

Establish a Red Flags Program 

To comply with the Red Flags Rule, veterinarians are required to develop a written “red flags program” to prevent, detect, and minimize the damage from identity theft. There are four basic steps to designing a program to comply with the Rule:

  1. Identify likely red flags common to your business and develop a written program to detect red flags in your day-to-day operations;
  2. Train employees about the program and why it’s important;
  3. Work to prevent and mitigate identity theft; and
  4. Review and update your program periodically to ensure effectiveness.

Additional recommendations

  1. Work with vendors to ensure they also have a formal identity theft program in place.
  2. Provide documentation that all employees have been trained in the program.
  3. Know what to do in the event of fraud.
Although criminal penalties won’t apply, those not in compliance may be subject to civil penalties up to $3,500 per violation. Taking precautions to protect your clients’ and employees’ information will ensure that you’re doing your part to prevent identity theft.
 
Help available

Darla Klovski a certified identity theft risk management specialist located in Spokane and can offer assistance in setting up programs for members. Ms. Klovski can provide a program with a proactive, preventive approach designed to help businesses meet the requirements of the new identity theft legislation in a simple and effective way at no direct out of pocket expense. For more information, contact Darla Klovski at 509-262-0209 or e-mail at darlaklovski@prepaidlegal.com.  
 
The AVMA has developed an online resource guide to assist veterinarians in establishing their Red Flags program. Definitions and examples of possible red flags are provided along with suggestions on mitigation when a red flag situation occurs.
 
 
A guided four step compliance template helps the business owner determine the level of risk for identity theft and design a program that fits their business:
 
  • Step I prompts the owner to identify and list all possible red flags.
  • Step 2 helps the owner outline how the business will detect these red flags that have been identified.
  • Step 3 provides the opportunity to outline how the business will respond if a red flag situation occurs.
  • Step 4 helps the owner outline how the program will be administered and updated. This includes staff training and working with outside contractors such as payroll companies

 Additional Links

 

 

Important information regarding veterinary technician licensure

  

Dear WSVMA Members:

 

The WSVMA held its quarterly Executive Board meeting on January 22, in Olympia.  Among the topics discussed were the issues of veterinary technician testing and licensing.

 

Currently Washington still allows non-academically trained veterinary technicians to be licensed.  Non-academically trained veterinary technicians are those who have completed five years’ practical experience under a licensed veterinarian’s supervision.  It is explained in the law as follows:

 

            ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________________________

RCW 18.92.128 Veterinary technician license – Rules

(1) The board shall issue a veterinary technician license to an individual who has:

     (a) successfully passed an examination administered by the board; and

     (b)(i) successfully completed a post high school course approved by the board in the care and treatment
       of animals; or

     (ii) Had five years' practical experience, acceptable to the board, with a licensed veterinarian.

     (2) The board shall adopt rules under chapter 34.05 RCW identifying standard tasks and procedures that must be included in the experience of a person who qualifies to take the veterinarian technician examination through the period of practical experience required in subsection (1)(b)(ii) of this section, and requirements for the supervising veterinarian's attestation to completion of the practical experience and that training included the required tasks and procedures.

            ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________________________

 

The window of opportunity for non-academically trained veterinary technicians sitting for the license examination under (b)(ii) above is closing.  Effective December 2014, non-academically trained candidates will no longer be allowed to sit for the exam.  The examination will only be available to those technicians who have successfully completed an approved program accredited by the AVMA.  Technicians and veterinarians in Washington have differing opinions as to whether or not this change will be positive.

 

The board examination currently used in Washington and spoken of in the RCW above is a national exam that is used throughout the U.S. and Canada.  It is owned by American Association of Veterinary State Boards.  Essentially, all states using this proprietary exam understand and agree to the following from AAVSB:

 

“The Veterinary Technician National Examination (VTNE) is owned and administered by AAVSB. The examination is given twice each year, in January and June. The VTNE is constantly updated, reviewed, and re-evaluated item by item so that it remains a valid tool useful in the evaluation of candidates for licensure.”

 

Despite Washington law saying it will allow people to sit for the test under (b)(ii) above, by December 2014 they will not be allowed to take the only test that has been available to them because of the test owner’s decision to restrict the test in states where practical experience is a route to licensure.

 

Now for the inevitable “what if” questions:

 

  • What if Washington said, “Too bad, we’re going to let them sit for the test when it is given in our state because that’s our law?  The answer is AAVSB can and will most likely not sell the state an examination. In effect, all of our potential technicians would be unable to sit for the examination.

 

  • What if they take their test and go away?  Can’t Washington prepare its own test and administer it to whoever they want?  The answer is yes, Washington could do that and that idea has been considered.  Preparing a competent, non-infringing test is very time consuming and costly.  Conducting that testing and having to score it, announce results, maintain records, etc., again takes another level of administration at what is an unacceptable expense.  Furthermore, if Washington did prepare and administer its own test, there will be no ability for Washington licensed technicians to seek licensure in other states without retaking the AAVSB test.  As it is now, non-academically trained veterinary technicians licensed in Washington do not have the option of seeking licensure in some states because of their lack of academically-based training.

 

  • Wouldn’t other states grant our licensed technicians reciprocity?  At this point no, but they could.  Seeking reciprocity is again costly, time consuming, and requires constant stewardship beyond the human and fiscal resources available or projected to become available in the foreseeable future.

 

  • I know other states have developed their own test, can’t we just use theirs?  Yes, such an arrangement could be made and again it will take a lot of time and money to ensure the test is valid and meets Washington’s needs.  And once again, the test would lack the empowerment of reciprocity.

 

  • What is the WSVMA doing about all this?  Although the WSVMA Executive Board regrets it cannot change the upcoming contractual ineligibility of non-academically trained veterinary technicians, it still has an obligation to ensure that a viable test remains in place for academically trained veterinary technicians. A vote was taken during the most recent board meeting to support a statutory change in RCW 18.92.128 eliminating the category of (b)(ii) as an avenue to sit for the examination.  Such a change would be consistent with the contractual stipulations for use of the AAVSB examination.  It also removes the paradox of a non-academically trained veterinary technician being legally eligible to sit for the exam under Washington law, yet not being allowed to because of the state’s contractual obligations.

 

The WSVMA is concerned for its members.  This was a tough but necessary decision to make.  The Executive Board is fully aware that many practitioners are committed to conducting their own training and understands this approach works well for many in our state.  However, by not moving forward, we may suffer a greater loss when our graduate technicians are not allowed to sit for the exam.

 

The WSVMA negotiated a final transition date of December 2014, four years past AAVSB's 2010 original deadline. Beginning now, any assistants who wish to obtain licensure through on-the-job training should begin the process immediately in order to complete their five years’ experience before the final change take place.

 

There will be an inevitable transition that veterinary practices will face as a result of these testing stipulations and the changes necessary to retain the only viable test available to Washington.  The Association is also aware of the potential for a decreased pool of licensed veterinary technicians and the potential hiring difficulties posed to some practices.  Finally, your Association takes no issue with the types of training and job skills provided for non-academically trained technicians by member veterinarians.

 

The WSVMA is committed to assisting members during this transition period.  The Veterinary Technician Task Force is being reenergized to examine any viable alternatives and make recommendations to the WSVMA Executive Board.  The Association welcomes practices to call and discuss methods and avenues for finding additional licensed veterinary technicians.

 

We want to remain aware of how this affects our members, so please keep us informed if you face problems related to finding, hiring, and retaining technicians in your practice.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Debora Wallingford                                                Ms. Candace Joy

WSVMA President                                                         WSVMA Executive Vice President

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001–2009 Washington State Veterinary Medical Association. All rights reserved. WSVMA Privacy Policy.