The Nebraska Board of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery has placed PEMF on the agenda for its April 29, 2026, meeting. The agenda includes a specific practice question: When does the use of PEMF become the practice of veterinary medicine, since the apparatus itself is not regulated? The board is also scheduled to review proposed draft revisions to both its regulations and statutes related to the Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act. Public comments are listed on the agenda, and the meeting is open in person and by WebEx.
Nebraska’s current statutory definition of the practice of veterinary medicine is broad. It includes diagnosing, treating, correcting, changing, relieving, or preventing animal conditions through a drug, medicine, biologic, apparatus, application, or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or technique. It also includes giving advice or recommendations on those acts and demonstrating the ability to perform them.
The board’s January 30, 2026, meeting minutes suggest that it has already adopted a restrictive view of similar apparatus-based services. In response to a practice question about Equine Aquatred, Theraplate, and Equine Acuscope/Myopulse, the board stated that the presenter would need to be licensed as a veterinarian to provide those services in Nebraska. The board also suggested that if a pathway is desired for non-veterinarians, support should be sought from a state senator to pursue statutory change.
AOPP’s position is that non-diagnostic, non-invasive supportive PEMF should not be treated as the practice of veterinary medicine solely because a pulsed electromagnetic field device is used. At the same time, this issue should not be resolved by an overly broad board position that, by default, sweeps all PEMF into veterinary medicine. Nebraska law already shows that the state can create more tailored pathways when needed. For example, Nebraska has an existing animal therapist framework.
AOPP believes the better path is a narrow statutory solution rather than a blanket restrictive rule. Veterinarians should remain responsible for diagnosis, prognosis, prescription, surgery, invasive procedures, and treatment of disease. But supportive PEMF should be addressed through clearer statutory boundaries that distinguish veterinary medicine from a limited non-veterinary supportive role. That is the conversation AOPP will continue advancing in Nebraska.
Members and practitioners who wish to write to the board should keep their message respectful, concise, and focused on the need for a narrower legislative fix rather than a sweeping interpretation. Or, use the template below:
Dear Members of the Nebraska Board of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery,
I am writing respectfully regarding the Board’s discussion of PEMF. I urge the Board not to adopt a blanket position that all animal PEMF is the practice of veterinary medicine solely because a device is used. A more workable approach would be to recognize that this issue may require a narrower statutory solution rather than an overly broad interpretation under current law.
Veterinarians should remain responsible for diagnosis, prognosis, prescription, surgery, invasive procedures, and treatment of disease. At the same time, supportive non-diagnostic, non-invasive PEMF should be considered more carefully and not automatically treated as veterinary medicine in every context.
Nebraska has previously addressed related animal-service issues through more tailored statutory frameworks, including the existing animal therapist structure. I respectfully ask the Board to leave room for a narrower legislative approach here rather than supporting a blanket restrictive position.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City, State]
[Business Name, if applicable]
Link to Nebraska Regulations Page: https://pemfprofessionals.com/regulation/nebraska/
