How do vets justify £50 on a bandage

[Woodward23]

Our dog cut her self today on a walk and we had to take her to vets, the bill came to £130! Consultation medicine i can understand but £50 of that bill was for it to be bandaged up just how do they justify that cost! I know no one can probably help but I just needed to vent to get it out of my system

Threads like this make me really grateful for our vets.

We use a small, rural farm vet. They look after everything from cows and goats to hamsters and rabbits. They're excellent value and we've never a single issue with them.

A couple of years ago one of my cats had a suspected blockage on New Years Eve. They saw him at 11pm, checked him over completely and gave him an anti-sickness jab, plus five days of antibiotics and painkillers to take home. It only cost me £96.

We have a dog plus three cats registered with them and I don't think I've ever paid more than £100 for anything except my dogs' neutering, and even that was only about £120. Our female cat was spayed for £96 for comparison.

Insurance is almost always assumed by a vet. Despite the RCVS guidelines requiring vets to outline the cost in advance of a decision being made, I frequently have to ask my vet about the cost of a treatment/response they are proposing. It means that the default option you're offered can be the expensive one, for example Librella vs paracetamol for the management of arthritis in dogs. This pushes/favours insurance.

Insurance is advertised in every vetinary clinic, and the insurance companies pay to have their details given to new owners in the new puppy/kitten and adoption packs.

Insurance has larger excesses and copayments, and more exclusions as your pet gets older. The question becomes how you can pay for insutrance and hundreds of pounds of vet bills.

Luxury = not a basic need. Unlike housing and clean tap water.
And more importantly nobody is entitled to a living thing. The cat may have benefitted your mother but it's not an object that exists solely for her satisfaction. Anybody unable to afford or take care of one shouldn't have one.Full stop.
The only exception is service dogs for disabled people and that I happily support charities etc paying for their expenses.
@KnittedCardi I highly doubt that 'everyone' had a pet but, that aside veterinary medicine wasn't as advanced. The vet was only for major problems, people didn't take their animals for small cuts and scrapes (do YOU go to the doctor when you have a cut?).
And anything too complex usually results in animals PTS.

Again, I'm not denying that there is profiteering but with the rise of furbabies etc animals are being treated like humans and that also comes with human costs. I'll see if I can find it again but there was an interesting article on how veterinary medicine's primary focus was livestock.
Domestic pets and associated quality of life issues Including managing pain, welfare is more recent.

https://www.ovrs.com/blog/history-of-veterinary-medicine/

This might do in the meantime - it's an American article though.

I 100% agree with your post. If - and only if - vet costs are too high it is down to either an unrealistic expectation by pet owners and / or private equity funds holding high prices. It is probably a mixture of both.

Luxury = not a basic need. Unlike housing and clean tap water.

I disagree, company is not a luxury. I've set my bar slightly higher than you obviously.

And more importantly nobody is entitled to a living thing. The cat may have benefitted your mother but it's not an object that exists solely for her satisfaction.

He was a rescue. The other option would be he lived his life in a pen at Battersea or was PTS. I think a life of luxury keeping DM company was the better option personally.

Anybody unable to afford or take care of one shouldn't have one.Full stop.

Well she could afford it and we helped her take care of him so it wasn't an issue was it?

To be honest I'd rather have the company of animals than certain humans.

But we're not talking about your DM's financial ability. You just used her as a example as to the benefits of animals. And that aside, you also 'helped' take care of the pet...if you've done any animal rescue work there's a surprising number coming in from elderly people who bought them knowing that they wouldn't be capable and had to give them up very soon. Good for your DM that you were around, eh?

This going going on a tangent beyond the original purpose of the thread, but classifying something as a luxury or otherwise is relevant to legislation and how much the market should be controlled.

FWIW I agree with @DogInATent . Basic animal healthcare should be kept affordable - but only via price controls, forcing insurers/providers to contribute. Legislation via pricing structures, clarity etc like the FCA has for financials products. Of course, if it turns out that these companies are profiteering excessively then that should be stopped too.

However things do have a minimum cost - and I'm against any government spending for that, UNLESS it's a service dog for the disabled. Because animals aren't a necessity.

If someone wants a dog and they can't afford it tough luck. It's not something they should be 'helped' to get. Of course, this is separate from people falling on hard times. Circumstances change.

But we're not talking about your DM's financial ability. You just used her as a example as to the benefits of animals.

I did and I stand by that. I will be getting another pet at some point, our house feels empty without one. There's two of us so I can't imagine how lonely someone living on there own would be.

And that aside, you also 'helped' take care of the pet...if you've done any animal rescue work there's a surprising number coming in from elderly people who bought them knowing that they wouldn't be capable and had to give them up very soon. Good for your DM that you were around, eh?

Not that it's any of your business but I helped her towards the end of her life not from the start of getting the cat. She was perfectly capable of looking after him when she got him but, guess what, things changed.

FWIW I agree with @DogInATent. Basic animal healthcare should be kept affordable - but only via price controls, forcing insurers/providers to contribute.

I agree but there should also be the option of more advanced treatment for those who want to pursue that option. My vet gave me cheaper options for my cat but I chose the more expensive ones because they were better for him and me.

Anybody unable to afford or take care of one shouldn't have one.Full stop.

If there's any debate, it's the definition of "take care of". Pet owners should have the means (savings or insurance) to cover routine vetinary requirements (vaccinations, worming/flea treatment, dental) and basic emergency care in the event of accident or mishap to ensure quality of life.

The dividing line of opinion is where basic/routine stops and elective animal care begins. And you can be incredibly close to your pets and still accept they're not human, and accept that sometimes enough is enough.

Yes exactly.
Some people think chemo for a pet is a necessity if they need if as for humans it's obviously going to be performed if there's a chance of a cure . Some don't, as that is not exactly routine or basic.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat 'should' be available? Who is going to ensure this?
If enough people are willing to pay the amounts needed to make it financially viable it will be. Otherwise no.
And I'm sure there is also a financial line.. we for example can afford a couple of thousand. Not more. Would you be willing to go into large debt for the more expensive option?

should' be available? Who is going to ensure this?
If enough people are willing to pay the amounts needed to make it financially viable it will be. Otherwise no.

So my pet is put to sleep for something fixable or curable because other other people can't/won't pay for the treatment?

And I'm sure there is also a financial line.. we for example can afford a couple of thousand. Not more. Would you be willing to go into large debt for the more expensive option?

When my cat had his broken jaw (not life threatening obviously) I told the vet to do whatever was necessary to fix it. I didn't know if the the insurance would pay (they did) or how much it would cost. If they hadn't paid it would have gone onto a credit card and I'd have worried about it later. That was my choice and no one else's business. However I wouldn't judge anyone who didn't want to get in debt.

You seem to want to take the choice to treat animals away and leave only basic treatment for those who you consider worthy of having a pet.

...and for funding private equity shareholder returns...

It's not the dividends, it's the debt.
Always look for the debt.

@DogInATent good point - they'll be enjoying the high interest rates then... bandages to be £60 next month?!

CBA to read the full thread but the cost isn't just for the bandage. A small portion of the cost goes towards

the cost of the building
the upkeep of the building
the insurance for the building and the business
the water
the gas
the electric
the vet
the vet nurse
the cleaner
the receptionist
meeting legal requirements
providing a small profit for the business owner so that they continue to run the business.

So its never just "the bandage" that you're actually paying for.

We've all become a bit spoilt with our free healthcare in this country and don't quite understand the real cost.

If you CBA just to read the opening post you'd see the bandage was £50 of a £130 charge. The overheads you mention should, in he main, be on the consultation fee. Not loaded onto a consumable in an itemised bill.

I reluctantly agree that an animal isn't a basic need that must be met, and reluctantly because I have had periods in my life where I've been desperately lonely and my dog and the horse I looked after (expenses paid) were the only things that stopped me sliding further into my own head and developing unhealthy habits.
This was a two way street though, they have shelter, security, warmth, comfort, food, water and veterinary care when needed. They are kept free from worms and fleas and groomed to ensure they're healthy. They need to be walked because they don't live outside with the ability to roam free and therefore need exercise and stimulating, this helps me as well.
It's a relationship that's mutually beneficial. I know legally I 'own' my dogs, however I don't think of them like that, I think of them as dogs, because that's what they are, but also as other sentient beings that I have a mutually beneficial relationship with.

I do agree with your point about the advancements in veterinary care and that vets were for 'major' things, not cuts and scrapes or an upset tummy for a couple of days. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for the advancements to be available for those who want it, but I do think it's unreasonable to expect everyone will subscribe to this and to accuse people of being irresponsible if they don't immediately rush off to the vet and spend a few hundred on something that you could treat at home effectively, or that would heal naturally on it's own without any intervention. Or if someone chooses to have the animal PTS over chemo and surgery with a cancer - I have worked with people who are undergoing chemo and it's hard enough for a human that understands, I wouldn't be doing it for any animal, regardless of cost because I don't think it's fair. I'd opt for pain management for as long as possible and then PTS when quality of life deteriorated. I wouldn't judge anyone for doing it, it's up to them, but I also wouldn't expect to be accused of being an irresponsible owner because I didn't choose to pull out all the stops to save the animal. I truly believe there's worse than things than being euthanised for an animal, and animals aren't sentimental, we as humans bring that to the relationship.

Of course I'm not advocating for animals to be left in pain, bleeding or injured, but as you say, people generally don't go to the Dr for every little bump, scrape and people do opt for no treatment to extend life in the case of cancer or other life limiting illnesses.
I do think that you should be able to provide basic care, food, water, shelter, warmth, parasite control and grooming (even if this isn't done professionally, I bathe and trim my own dogs when needed) and veterinary care, even if that's basic so pain relief measures/emergency or euthanisia.
I have basic insurance to this end, can afford the basic needs, but wouldn't be persuing invasive or aggressive treatment even if money weren't an issue.

Charming.

You don't seem to understand how any of this works.
I don't desire to take anything away. Or otherwise.
It is a free market.
So if it is financially viable , a private business will provide it. That's all.

If not then it won't. You didn't answer my question of, is something 'should' be available, who is going to make sure that it is?

What I object to is basic treatments being priced up to subside the expensive ones (I e dividing the overall running cost including the expensive ones). Which is what PP was referring to. New vets with all the expensive mod cons, charging loads for everything. That stuff.

You want to pay for your pet fine, but don't involve the rest of us. If that means that less fancy treatments are available I don't care. There will probably be some specialist centres or similar and people like you can't go there and pay whatever they charge. Doesn't need to be available in every neighborhood vet which is what seems to be happening.

Yes, completely agree and you've put it better than I can.
As a PP said animals live in the moment. They don't understand undergoing rounds of invasive treatment for a future cure... Or things like that.
As much as I love my pet she is an animal, not a human
She doesn't take things the way I do
When we took her to the vet for her digestive issues she hated it and was stressed for days after... I couldn't continue to subject her to a battery of tests when she seemed perfectly healthy otherwise and vet wasn't too worried. Of course as a human I'd want a complete investigation but she isn't human.

@AP5Diva The vets are companies set up to make a profit.

Why is 'profit' a dirty word to some people?

Any private sector company has to make a profit otherwise it can't function. Profit equals a company's revenues minus expenses. Earning a profit is important to a small business because profitability impacts whether a company can secure financing from a bank, attract investors to fund its operations and grow its business - and that includes paying it's staff.

Companies cannot remain in business without making a profit.

I think to many that profit has its place for goods and services that are not common goods.

When it comes to things that really should be nationalised and done on a not for profit basis by the State, then “profit” is a dirty word because what you get when you have any organisation run on a for profit basis is price rises faster than inflation, sacrifice of quality of services/goods and abuse of employee rights/low wages to generate as much profit as possible.

When we talk about any sort of healthcare service whether for humans or animals, then this directly causes exorbitant prices, excess deaths due to poor healthcare and underpaid and/or overworked vets/vet nurses (or doctors/nurses if for humans).

This is also exacerbated by the fact that demand for pet healthcare is relatively inelastic. Pet owners have no choice but to pay or have their pet rehomed/PTS which is often not an option due to affection and companionship.

In fact many companies can stay in business without making a profit- they are not for profit companies and charities.

@AP5Diva In fact many companies can stay in business without making a profit- they are not for profit companies and charities.

I think you are comparing apples and pears here.

I have little experience of the workings of the Not for Profit Sector.

However, I do know that charities are heavily subsidised in the form of donations and people giving their time for free. Most pay just over the minimum wage for salaried staff.
They also make use of the Gift Aid Tax loophole to claw back 25p in the pound for any donations they receive.
Charity shops may not even have to pay business rates. Charitable rate relief gives them up to 80% off their business rates bill. The local council may also be able to top up the discount so that they do not have to pay business rates at all.. This is called ‘discretionary relief’.
So these shops are being subsidised by every Community Charge payer in the area.

In addition a charity will not pay tax on most of their income and gains if it is used for "Charitable Purposes" - this is known as ‘charitable expenditure’.
This includes tax:

• on donations
• on profits from trading
• on rental or investment income, for example bank interest
• on profits when they sell or dispose of an asset, like property or shares
• when you buy property.

Like I said "apples & pears" 🙂

@Astsjakksmso, we're clearly poles apart in what we think vets should offer so I don't see there's any benefit to carrying on the conversation. However as I didn't answer your question (sorry, I didn't realise it was compulsory), I think it's down to the vet practice to decide what's available depending on the client demographic.

We have a variety of vets here, we have Vets For Pets, other chains that I don't know anything about and my excellent vets who offer pretty much everything a referral vet does. I choose to use that one for several reasons as do many other people in the area.

On the subject of me choosing to pay for my pet but don't involve anyone else, how am I involving other people when I use a service my vet offers? To be honest I don't think any of the treatments my cat had were particularly fancy. Since when has having a broken jaw wired been fancy (not even done at my current vet but my crappy previous one)? A heart scan and medication? Not really fancy.

Yes thank you. I wasn’t actually comparing the different types of business models or even implying that not for profits or charities are perfect business models.

I was simply correcting your assertion that a company has to be for profit to stay in business & secure investment.

It doesn’t have to be for profit. You’ve quite clearly listed the ways in which individuals and government agencies do in fact invest in companies that are not for profit or charities. Many of these not for profits and charities have been in business for decades.

And when it comes to the types of goods or services that are more needs than wants- that is where it’s often thought for profit companies providing them is unethical. I’m talking about things like healthcare, utilities, food, public transport, education, police, fire- all the things categorised as common goods and for which there is often debate as to whether the State should do it under a socialised/nationalised setup whereby taxes fund it and the State delivers it via civil servants or not-for profit/charity business model where it’s provided by the private sector.

That’s why to some “profit” can become a dirty word when the goods or services are according to their ethics something that is necessary and not a want and so should be provided without profit generation being the primary objective.