Predictably, some racetrack veterinarians who handle “covered” Thoroughbreds say they are overwhelmed by new reporting requirements that have them buried in online paperwork. Federal officials say they are working to help integrate software systems to speed things up.
By Andrew Cohen
Doctors have been complaining about paperwork for as long as there have been doctors and paper. And have you ever met a veterinarian who complains there are too few forms to fill out? I have not. So along comes a new federal regulatory regime trying to protect the health and safety of racehorses by requiring some veterinarians to take better notes about the treatment of the horses under their care and what do you have? A whole new level of complaints about the time it takes to fill out the proper paperwork. To help frame the debate going forward, I think it’s helpful to have an active vet describe the new HISA process and then have HISA folks respond.
Here is a veterinarian’s perspective. (I am honoring a request to remain anonymous.) “As an equine veterinarian based at a training center NOT licensed by a racing commission there was no external paperwork requirement prior to HISA. Data entry was focused on billing and medical records. As HISA evolved, so did the paperwork trail. Initially we submitted Excel spreadsheets which allowed rapid entry of the requested data as we were able to copy and paste multiple entries such as Adequan for multiple horses. HISA personnel then reportedly entered this information into the individual horse records.
“Now it is a much more labor intensive process at the practice end: Every covered TB horse in our software must be attached to their HISA number. Day work is entered into our practice software to each individual horse’s record (similar to process prior to HISA) BUT each entry is comprised of multiple clicks to complete the HISA process which include: condition treated, medication treated, dosage, route of administration, diagnosis, findings so a single entry previously now takes 6-7 more entry efforts.
“These data entries are then synchronized with HISA through an approval system which requires the practitioner to proof the final entry and correct, approve or decline the entry. If an error is found at a later date with the entry there is a repeat process to ‘update’ the record. There are some glitches that are frustrating; for example, horses with short names do not come up on the HISA search option requiring a query directly to HISA personnel. The data entry process has probably tripled the time required for paperwork.
“The necessity of accuracy is ever present thus it cannot be done in a slapdash fashion and must be done after practice vetwork is complete.On an average day starting at sunrise in the barns this will usually add an additional 1-2 hours at the end of the day of administrative work in the office. In many ways this twilight time is as important as caring for the horses physical needs, for now we must assist their trainers as well with additional paperwork such as submitting Pre-race examination records often for races that do not fill, in addition to the HISA record keeping.”
And here is HISA’s response, from a spokesperson. “HISA works with a growing list of integrators and each one has something different to offer their clients. We encourage vets to find the system that works best for them. We have additional Integrators coming on board all the time, we look for solutions for all types of vets whether they have a few clients or work in a big practice.
“If a veterinarian has a preferred software system that is not integrated with HISA, we hope that they will encourage their software company to email or call us. We have an integration team that will work hand in hand with the veterinarian software company all through the integration process and we don’t charge any fees. We are constantly improving the HISA Portal for veterinarians, including an area dedicated to vet practices. We are very proud of our new MedEnt app for vets who use their mobile devices to quickly get their records in. We listen closely to their feedback and come up with new time saving features all the time.
“It’s true that there are new rules and requirements now which did not exist before. While we work to implement our equine safety mission, we are constantly thinking about ways to help the veterinarians who work so hard. The information HISA collects from veterinarians goes directly into our data analytics program. We are designing models to identify horses at risk for injury and we will soon be offering new technology tools to vets, trainers, owners, and racetracks. It all begins with standardized treatment records where we can compare one record to the next. This is why HISA collects very specific information about horse treatments and there are additional mouse clicks to fill out a record than before HISA launched.”
I’d love to hear more from the racing community about how new HISA paperwork obligations are easing, or not, as the technology gets into place and the feds find the best practices to make things work more smoothly. I’d like to hear more constructive criticism from racetrack vets. If we want to be able to turn to the public and say we are doing everything we can for the health and safety of racehorses it is imperative that the paper trail in horse racing gets much better. Yes, that means more paperwork, or mouse-clicks, for vets and trainers and more headaches for owners. It also means a federal obligation to streamline the process as much as possible.
The Racehorse Health and Safety Act is (still) no answer
It takes about 15 minutes to read United States Trotting Association President Russell Williams’ recent question-and-answer session on the Racehorse Health and Safety Act, a doomed piece of federal racing legislation the USTA’s leadership is pushing as an alternative to the current federal racing integrity law. I promise you, dear Keeping Pace reader, that if you make it through Williams’ 4,000-plus word salad you will be less smart at the end of those 15 minutes than you are now. You will not know materially more of the merits or flaws in HISA or the RHSA than you do now. Save yourself the trouble. Spend those 15 minutes instead reading a good book or watching old yearling videos or, if you are coming back from the barn, taking a shower.
I’ve read Williams’ analysis of the RHSA so you don’t have to. And I won’t try to rebut every one of his points. He starts off with this quote: “Working effectively together, the states are the ideal racing regulator,” but never explains why states have failed for decades to “work effectively” to be “ideal racing regulators.” Next, after complaining for years that HISA is an example of federal overreach, he argues that Congress didn’t reach far enough with HISA, forcing the feds to “infiltrate and occupy the state system.” Instead of describing it like an invading army, a more reasonable way to view HISA, which relies in part on existing state racing commissions, is to say that the feds chose not to reinvent the wheel. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?
The next passage is a litany of false claims. For example, “HISA and its minions are accountable to no legitimate governmental authority,” Williams writes. Wrong. HISA is accountable to the Federal Trade Commission, a federal agency which is accountable ultimately to Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Next wonky claim? “The horse industry wants RHSA and does not want HISA.” I have yet to see proof of that beyond the propaganda arms of the USTA and its allies who have sued the government to stop the enforcement of HISA. Here’s another whopper: “HISA was not an Act of Congress” followed by a screed against Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who helped pass HISA and its subsequent amendment.
If you are a racehorse person and you think Mitch McConnell is your enemy you might want to recalibrate your perceptions. An earlier version of what turned out to be HISA had over 260 House co-sponsors, members of both parties from every region in the country, who argued over the details of a federal racing integrity law for years, in public sessions and backdoor meetings, until the law was ripe for passage. By contrast, there are four co-sponsors of the RHSA, if you count the one Colorado lawmaker who is soon leaving office. If HISA gets struck down by conservative judges, and that’s still a possibility given the courts’ makeup, no one needs to pretend that Congress is going to be eager to revisit another federal racing law anytime soon.
Williams says that HISA proponents have “never yet” answered the questions of why federal regulation works better than state regulation. Wrong again. HISA proponents, myself included, have repeatedly explained the case for HISA (and many of us have also exposed HISA’s flaws). Williams argues that the RHSA is better than HISA because HISA receives no public money while the RHSA budget will be partly “state funded.” Public funding is good, he argues, because it reduces the amount that industry participants must pay. No public funding is bad, he also argues, because it will make federal regulators less accountable to the industry. If you want racing to stay on the public dole, vote for the RHSA, is the USTA’s slogan. Good luck with that.
On and on it goes. One unserious argument after another. Many are an embarrassment coming from an organization that purports to represent all USTA members, including people like me who support what HISA is trying to do. I’ll have more to say here next week about the RHSA, but it’s clear that Williams and I are never going to agree on the need for tough new national racing integrity standards. That’s okay. We don’t all have to agree. But he’s the president of the USTA and I am not. That means he has an obligation, a fiduciary duty or not, to share both the pros and cons of HISA and RHSA to educate members fairly and allow horse people to make an informed choice about these laws. That he surely is not doing. And that’s not okay.
NOTES
The importance of keeping an open mind and an honest review of relevant data. Here’s Alan Foreman, chairman and CEO of the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, on what he’s seen from HISA, featured in a recent BloodHorse piece: “The safety program clearly is showing benefits. Listen, I testified against the Horseracing Integrity Act. I was opposed to it. But when I was told that it’s going to happen, I said then to put a safety program in there – a mandatory safety program like what the Mid-Atlantic does and California is doing. Safety is where you really need uniformity. And I think that program is working.” In the same piece, Jockeys’ Guild president and CEO Terry Meyocks said he wished there was more input from the industry stakeholders earlier in the HISA/FTC rulemaking process.
The costs of cheating. I loved the framing of this BloodHorse story by Bob Ehalt about how New Jersey trainers are thriving in the wake of the 2020 arrests and subsequent convictions of Jorge Navarro and Jason Servis. In addition to endangering the lives of racehorses, these guys were stealing from their colleagues. “It’s 100 percent different. It’s not even close. When those guys were there you were running for second or third. Now it’s a more even playing field and it has encouraged me to run there more often,” John Fanelli, an owner, said. “It was so annoying. Because you knew you didn’t have a chance to beat Servis and Navarro and nobody was doing anything about it. It was like you were banging your head against a brick wall.”
There are so many good, honest trainers and owners in racing, in both the Thoroughbred and Standardbred industry, who are cheated every day out of purse earnings by people who are either doping horses or acting as beards for people who do. Ask honest trainers who race at Yonkers or Pocono, for example, and they will tell you quietly how frustrated they are with the lack of state regulatory action. Many who privately gripe about competing on an unlevel playing field yet say nothing about it, either because they don’t feel they have tangible proof of wrongdoing, they have little confidence that state commissions are going to do anything about it, or because they are afraid of the workplace consequences of speaking out.
Three months into this adventure. Just want to thank everyone for reading “Keeping Pace” and for taking the time to write to me with comments, criticisms, suggestions and otherwise. I read everything and appreciate the guidance and advice (whether I agree with it or not). I also want to thank racing officials, trainers, vets, owners and others for helping to educate me about what the racing landscape looks like nearly one year into this grand federal experiment. I particularly want to thank our sponsors for their support. The next three months will put us past the Triple Crown season, onto the eve of the Saratoga meet, and likely bring us the long-awaited U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on HISA’s constitutionality. Happy Spring!
