98% of vets asked to euthanise healthy pets for bad behaviour

RE: 98% of vets asked to euthanise healthy pets for bad behaviour

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:04:37 GMT

[mention:cddd2354c3db464db7a5b21f9d7d68ee:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] My understanding (right or wrong) is that some internet companies are able to source drugs at a vastly discounted price, compared to what practices (especially smaller independents) can buy at.

But again, that's not really the point, because the issue here is the total cost to the owner, which includes the consultation fee. If the consultation fee is low, then the £38.14 mark up you are talking about is perfectly reasonable!

I'm not arguing for high mark ups. I'm just making the point that they are only part of the equation and cannot be looked at in isolation.

RE: 98% of vets asked to euthanise healthy pets for bad behaviour

PSA-David — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:46:18 GMT

but what you have to consider it how internet companies can get their cost so low. Do practices need to keep 3 weeks worth of stock in practice. should a vaccine that is bout for 4.86 be charged out at £43?

RE: 98% of vets asked to euthanise healthy pets for bad behaviour

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:30:12 GMT

[mention:cddd2354c3db464db7a5b21f9d7d68ee:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] Then again, should veterinary surgeons be allowed to charge less than a plumber for a consultation?!

My point is that product mark up is surely not really the issue. The issue is the total cost to the owner. If a practice charges £1 for a consultation, then a product mark up of 2000% would probably be OK!

But given the competition from the internet, the direction of travel is increased consultation fees and reduced mark up.

RE: 98% of vets asked to euthanise healthy pets for bad behaviour

PSA-David — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:15:23 GMT

there is the flip side in this, should vets really be allowed to place a 75% mark up on a medicine? which therefore out prices the fees that owners can actually afford¬