The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

RE: The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

SmegSlayer — Mon, 16 May 2016 17:15:31 GMT

It's not just from TV- i worked in West London last summer and someone who had adopted a rescue (can't remember which rescue) was told that laprascopic bitch spays were now the norm. took a good 15 minutes to reassure the owner that her dog would be fine being spayed the 'old fashioned way'.

I'm now mainly in the forensics field and we have a big problem with this- papers have been written on this- It's known as the CSI effect. Thanks to such programs people believe that DNA will solve a case, and don't understand the limitations of the various methods of analysing evidence- a BIG problem when a jury (aka the public) has to make a judgement beyond reasonable doubt and the someones entire future could be changed by that judgement.

RE: The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

PSA-David — Mon, 16 May 2016 14:14:06 GMT

I agree with the above. when I sent my Bullmastiff off for an eye operation previously at a referral I have to say. the way they billed things is an eye-opener. I have to say if every practice charged like they do. then people would certainly not complain that vets just make money off medicines.

all items that were used including syringes were itemised. medicines I would say they made about 25p off an injection of metacam. but the prices for the procedure reflected where the expert was qualified. when I asked said practice, it was confirmed well we are trained to diagnose and fix animals. we only prescribe medication not manufacture it. so we emphasise this via our procedure price list. which customers appreciate more.

RE: The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

k.91 — Fri, 13 May 2016 19:52:28 GMT

I work in referrals. We try to make referral costs work for the pet and the owner, but at the same time if your pet needs an MRI or contrast CT then a 5 hour surgery with a highly qualified specialist surgeon it's always going to cost a fair bit of money. We find the people who complain least are people who have lived in countries like the US where you need to pay for your own healthcare because they know what healthcare costs.

Everyone should have the option of referral, but we don't accept clients calling us to organise there own referrals, there needs to be VS involved. I would be very uncomfortable sticking with a vet for my own animals who point blank refused to refer if i requested a 2nd opinion.

RE: The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

PSA-David — Fri, 13 May 2016 18:30:14 GMT

going to be watching this post closely. however my honest opinion is no, if an animal deserves a new chance of life and there is a potential for this to happen by places like the super vet or eye referrals. then so be it. when this was discussed at congress. most of the complaints and gripes came from practices that are not able to advance or support clients demands further with the technology of todays industry.

and yes I agree, why shouldn't a client get the option to be referred to a specialist place, as they are the one footing the bill. Plus if there is any doubt in the surgery. why even attempt it?

RE: The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

Ben Ogden — Fri, 13 May 2016 17:48:33 GMT

The human healthcare sector needs to start instilling a sense of price and value in human medicine and surgery. Until that happens Veterinary care will continue to be viewed as costly and advancements will more likely become pie in the sky for some clients.

RE: The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

Steph Worsley — Thu, 12 May 2016 17:23:23 GMT

I work in referral and do agree sometimes things can be pushed too far. obviously I know a heck of a lot more now than I did 9 years ago before I started working in the referral world and I am aware that there is much more that can be done and it does frustrate sometimes when 1st opinion vets do a bit of this and a bit of that with cases and then refer them when they only have £500 left of insurance as that doesn't let us do much, or they have kept them in their practice all week and then refer them on a Fri when there isn't much life left in the animals. Not saying that all practices do that, some are the other end of the spectrum and refer cases that can clearly be dealt with in practice without spending the money coming to us.

I know we do try to keep all our costs affordable and I think I worked out one day that our hospitalisation costs were a bit cheaper than one of the local practices.

RE: The "Supervet" effect, how much is too much?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 12 May 2016 15:45:34 GMT

[quote user="TMc10"]However we do have to reflect on the fact that at times could these advances be a step too far? [/quote]

I think this is one of the most important questions facing the veterinary profession today!

On the one hand, you can argue that in a free society, we can all decide what we want to spend on our animals. If someone wants to spend 10K on a fitz-nicely-thank-you leg replacement for their dog, that's their choice.

But I can't help feeling that as veterinary procedures become more and more complex and expensive, they are just going to fall outside the reach of the ordinary dog owner (or cost more than they think it's right to spend on a dog).

Or the tab gets picked up by the insurers, which leads to insurance price hikes. We've already seen the effect of this with RSA insurance.

There's no stopping scientific advance, not that one would want to, but the combination of increasingly complex tests and procedures, greater owner expectations and increased prices is a pretty challenging problem.

[quote user="TMc10"]was just very interested to find out what other vets, qualified nurses, lay staff think about this.[/quote]

Not that you're asking me (I'm not any of those things, but I have been working in the profession for quite a few years now.