What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:07:32 GMT

[quote userid="40831" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178490#178490"]I really mean transparency about who they are.[/quote]

Yeah, it's an interesting point, that.

I mean, I hate the way the world has turned into one big Costa Starbucks. I love variety, and I actually rather like the way that some of the corporate practices keep their original identities.

I know they are all owned by IVC or Linnaeus or whatever, but at least there is some semblance of variety!

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

chrysanthemum20 — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:57:22 GMT

Sorry, I don't think I was clear, I really mean transparency about who they are. I don't work near to home, but locally to me all the independent practices have been bought up over the last couple of years and there are none now, but it's really not clear on the practice websites that is the case, there is no 'rebranding' as such. Nothing changes on the surface, so transparency about what practices are owned by the same company. Likewise with cremation options, for example, if it's a crematorium they own, being transparent about that.

I agree about the difficulty with giving a pricing structure, I work emergency only, so nothing is 'standard' with regards to needs and subsequent costs, but routine consultation fees, costs for vaccinations or microchipping is something that could be made clear, I was quite surprised by the recent charges for boosters for my dog.

Definitely agree with having a better approach to treatment options, and that's what I mean also with pricing, being clear about what treatment is available at what cost. Appreciate it's anecdotal and probably not of interest, but one client was quoted 10k for weekend management of DKA, this sort of cost outstrips most insurance policies, let alone people's bank accounts. It's only because they were calling around to get quotes elsewhere that they were able to go ahead with treatment instead of PTS, and in the back of my mind is the thought that, what if they hadn't? Because not everyone would call around...our bill came to 3.8k, for full transparency here ;)

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

Selena Carnell — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:52:18 GMT

[quote userid="20520" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178483#178483"]I would not be surprised if they also own online pharmacies too, there should also be more transparency of corporate ownership.[/quote]

They do, IVC i believe own pet drugs online. so they charge one price in practice and then they have the online price which is often less than we can buy in from our wholesaler. we can't complete as an independent practice we offer written prescriptions as much as we can, but these often get misused by clients trying to forge or amend them.

i cancelled my own dog insurance as i couldn't afford to pay for it following a divorce and transferring to a single wage and universal credits.

the review will be interesting.

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:30:49 GMT

[quote userid="20520" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178483#178483"]Ok I will start the discussion, don't shoot me ...[/quote]

Certainly not

[quote userid="20520" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178483#178483"]Yes of course veterinary fees have increased, when I started in practice a consultant was £21 there was near revolt when the cost rose to £23![/quote]

Louise Royle RVN CertCFVHNut, I think it's important to distinguish between veterinary fees and the cost of veterinary care.

Consultations, for example, have not increased dramatically AFAIK - indeed I think most people would agree they represent pretty good value (I would have to pay more for a plumber).

The cost of veterinary care, however, has gone up way in excess of inflation. Drug costs, equipment costs, diagnostic tests, the cost of regulation (cascade, for example).

[quote userid="40831" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178484#178484"]I agree that more transparency for corporate practices and their charges[/quote]

chrysanthemum20, hi, I don't think this is the main problem, or that it is restricted to corporate practices. The CMA founds that 80% of practices don't display prices, so that must a good fair share of independents, too.

I also think veterinary care is so complex that it is going to be very hard to display prices in a way that will help with transparency. I mean, you can give a price for a procedure, but what anaesthetic, what antibiotics, what level of care, what is the success rate, etc etc.

In any event I think the biggest factor driving higher prices is that veterinary care is a completely different thing now to what it was even twenty years ago. It used to be one or two small practices in your local town, where they'd have a go at most things. Now everything is more regulated (which costs money), there are more drugs, more expensive equipment, way more diagnostic tests, and everything is referred at the drop of a hat.

In fact, I think the swanky new multidisciplinary referral centres kind of illustrate the problem better than anything else.

I went for a trip round one a few months ago. On the one hand, I was amazed and impressed. On the other, I couldn't help but wonder a) who is paying for all this, and b) being slightly morally conflicted about the fact that the veterinary hospital I visited would probably rival Great Ormond Street in terms of its facilities. Is it right that as a society, we are spending so much money on extending the life of, say, a dog with cancer?

[quote userid="66257" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178485#178485"]It is very easy to focus on pets as a luxury but I think we also need to think about the tremendous positive impacts that pets bring for mental and physical well being of all family members, and that they should therefore being thought of as a public good and not as a luxury only richer people can afford. [/quote]

Louise Buckley I SO agree with you.

I have heard it argued (by a vet) that veterinary prices are just now reflecting the true cost of care, and that people will have to just suck it up and accept that pet ownership is a luxury.

I profoundly disagree with that, for precisely the reason you say. Pet animals are a great way of teaching children life lessons. They provide companionship, particularly for the lonely and the elderly. They have an important place in society.

Still, if one accepts that prices should correct, and there isn't money to be saved in salaries (!), then perhaps the only way to achieve the savings is by offering a more basic level of care - or as the Blue Cross Chief vet has called for - pragmatic care.

[quote userid="66257" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178485#178485"]When we start to see veterinary professionals (including vets) complaining about their pet insurance cost and cancelling (and even a vet nurse is on around the median salary) as no-longer affordable then that should really be making us think.[/quote]

Too right.

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

Louise Buckley — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:18:28 GMT

[quote userid="20520" url="~/f/nonclinical-discussions/32491/what-do-you-think-about-the-govt-review-of-veterinary-prices/178483#178483"]Only one client has directly brought up the discussion and she did this first thing Monday morning by phone, my heart sank when she declared why she was calling (having listened to the BBC radio broadcast that morning) but it turned out she had just rung to thank us! For being independent, begged us to never go corporate and how much she appreciated all of us, I reminded her that all those working in corporate were still human, everyone of them would be working their asses of to help and care for animals and in many cases they had zero influence on fee setting, I know I'm one of the lucky few to not (yet) have received abuse about fees, but I'm sure it's coming. Our standard line is if you are unhappy about the service,costs,staff etc then will happily send your history elsewhere![/quote]

Lovely to hear - and a client that clearly appreciates everything that you do! Most do by the way, it is a cognitive bias that leads us to focus on the ones that don't, perhaps because they shout loudest. But the client that quietly just keeps using your practice for years is also probably shouting loudly that they appreciate you - they are just on mute.

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

Louise Buckley — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:13:27 GMT

I welcome the report and hope that it will lead to positive change in practice. I don't want to see backlash against staff on the shop floor because they are just doing their job and trying to do their best for animal welfare, but pricing differentials are massive. I know of a practice that charged around 1.2k just to remove deciduous canines in a small breed - the independent down the road would have done that for 50% less. Clients don't realise this and are often paying money they can ill afford because 'that is what their ([largely corporate]' practice is charging.

Moving onto my favourite topic - Brucella canis - we keep a database now of practices in respect of how they handle BC and part of this is the fees around BC testing. The data is muddy because we don't split between consult fee and testing fees, but practices are charging between c£60 and c£450 - for the APHA combined tests SAT and iELISA that cost around £30 + VAT to purchase from the APHA. Yes, there are additional practices costs - but enough to justify £450?

And in my own case, around 8 years ago I was charged around £550 to remove one pre-molar from a small breed dog - the practice charged by time and I assume that the vet must have been rather slow. We all know that colleagues vary in speed - but £550 back then was way above the 'norm' and I nearly fell over backwards when I got the bill. I paid it without fuss but then very soon after moved my account to another practice because I knew this 'was not the norm'. Similarly, I have enough knowledge to say 'no' when told what needs to happen to my animals, and to suggest a less costly but likely to still work fine approach but our clients usually don't have this knowledge and are dependent upon us to give them the range of options, and not just promote what we may be believe is the 'best' (which commonly covaries with most expensive) approach. So reports like the CMAs and action that follows from this is essential to protecting the consumer, but also to protecting animal welfare. I just wish that they had done this much sooner.

It is very easy to focus on pets as a luxury but I think we also need to think about the tremendous positive impacts that pets bring for mental and physical well being of all family members, and that they should therefore being thought of as a public good and not as a luxury only richer people can afford. When we start to see veterinary professionals (including vets) complaining about their pet insurance cost and cancelling (and even a vet nurse is on around the median salary) as no-longer affordable then that should really be making us think.

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

chrysanthemum20 — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:33:49 GMT

I work for an independent emergency practice, we do our best to keep costs as affordable as possible, but as an independent, we don't have the buying power of large corporates, so things do cost more. We also need to pay our staff fairly, they deserve a decent wage for their skills.

Despite trying our best to keep costs down, we still get abuse and constant demands for money back 'because our prices are extortionate' (OOH cons fees are 180, just to give a bit of context).

I agree that more transparency for corporate practices and their charges and what they have a stakehold in is welcome, but I fear this will just be an excuse for more vet bashing.

RE: What do you think about the Govt review of veterinary prices?

Louise Royle RVN CertCFVHNut — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:21:59 GMT

Ok I will start the discussion, don't shoot me ...

Yes of course veterinary fees have increased, when I started in practice a consultant was £21 there was near revolt when the cost rose to £23! At the same time petrol was less than £1/litre and you could feed yourself for less than £30 a week (ok so we all know how old I am now)

Yes imo corporate ownership needs review, I work at the only remaining independent surgery in the local area, yes I do feel that they have too much internal control with ownership of referral centres and cremation companies keeping it all in house, I would not be surprised if they also own online pharmacies too, there should also be more transparency of corporate ownership. In the past when I worked in corporate owned practice I have witnessed the super discount booster vaccination price to get the client through the door and then the massively inflated cesarian price performed in hours.

We received a flyer for a local corporate owned referral displaying there amazing competitive prices, only £2700 for an eye enucleation, the last one we performed came in at under £1500 obviously our surgery is smaller and has less overheads etc but how can they justify changing that much?

Luckily I have not received too much grief from clients other than the usual how much?!? And hope not to see you too soon comments, we are open about our routine costs and display them in reception, estimates are given and fees discussed, that said we can not complete with the online pharmacy costs, writing prescriptions for purchase online takes time and therefore should be charged appropriately to the client.

I think clients forget that pet ownership is a responsibility and a privilege, I insure my pets because I want them to receive the best possible care, I also have a credit card for them to pay the unexpected bill that occurs when they need emergency unexpected treatment. For years I did not own any pets because I simply could not afford it.

Only one client has directly brought up the discussion and she did this first thing Monday morning by phone, my heart sank when she declared why she was calling (having listened to the BBC radio broadcast that morning) but it turned out she had just rung to thank us! For being independent, begged us to never go corporate and how much she appreciated all of us, I reminded her that all those working in corporate were still human, everyone of them would be working their asses of to help and care for animals and in many cases they had zero influence on fee setting, I know I'm one of the lucky few to not (yet) have received abuse about fees, but I'm sure it's coming. Our standard line is if you are unhappy about the service,costs,staff etc then will happily send your history elsewhere!