Vets. Are they all much of a muchness?

[Sparklingbrook]

We use a chain vet that is located inside a large chain pet shop. Starting to get a bit disillusioned.
Sparklingcat goes every year for vaccinations and every year I come back and they say she's a bit overweight and it might be good to have a consultation about her diet. Then they say her teeth need a scale and polish and try and sell me stuff to go in her water and the special diet for her teeth. Just a vague feeling that they are on the upsell all the time.

My Mum has her cat with them and feels the same. There are a couple of independent vets I could use instead.

At the moment we pay £10 a month and that includes all monthly flea/worm treatment, vaccinations and very discounts on other things including teeth. I do like the long opening hours and the easy parking.

Cat due her vaccinations again this month and just wondering what will be said this time.

Ah but I guess when we registered her with them it would be on the paperwork.

Our vets are wonderful, they are owned by a small local chain but until recently were completely independent. The practice we use is still run by the same people and we trust them completely. Never any upselling, they will always be honest about the chances of treatment working and won't do something if they don't think it will benefit the animal. If your pet needs ongoing treatment (e.g injections) they will teach you how to give it at home so that you don't need to keep going back for consultations.

They specialise in cats and small animals so don't see dogs at all, so the waiting room is a lot less stressful. We don't have cats, we have rabbits, but the two vets are among the leading cat and rabbit vets in the country. They have patients who travel from over 200 miles away. They really are fantastic and we couldn't be happier with them. We've got to know them and the rest of the staff very well over the last 7 years or so since we've been going there and I honestly cannot recommend them highly enough!

I think that pure dental issues are regarded as a 'maintenance' matter in most policies, Sparkling, and not therefore covered.

Yes, it's all in the small print cozie.

The only thing she has to go to the vets for routinely and it's not covered.

Our old cat only ever went to the vet for treatment of abcesses caused by bites from other cats. Always came in about £5 under the excess.

Insurance companies don't set excesses by thinking of a figure and halfing it - they'll be well aware of common treatments and cost levels.

PS - and most vet practices, likewise, will be well aware of excess levels.

Yes pet insurance is for the big stuff.

I don't have pets at the moment but when I did, I had rats. I used two different surgeries depending on the issue - one vet, an independent older gentleman who ran the place on his own with his wife on admin duty, was a really excellent vet, but would only use injectable anaesthetic for surgery on rats, and I firmly believe that that contributed to at least two of mine not surviving surgery - it's much harder to recover from, and they're so small and fragile. The other vet, a small local chain with 4 branches in the area, did great surgeries (gaseous anaesthetic, very neat stitching, didn't shave half the rat which is good because the poor creatures hate that and it makes them miserable) but was rubbish with nonsurgical issues. Not upselling or anything, but just not knowing stuff - I've been told vets receive barely any training on rats and many places consider them exotics, but I got fed up being told things that are just categorically wrong.

I guess I'm a bit of a pain as a client - I do a lot of research, which I think you kind of have to if you have a non-cat/dog/rabbit kind of nonstandard pet, but it's difficult sometimes to strike a balance between respecting the professional knowledge and training of the vet (which I do, they are highly educated and skilled people) and feeling like you need to push back if you feel something is not right and your pet needs a different treatment. Vet 1 was great for that - he's crap with people, actually, bit grumpy and locally people find him intimidating, but once I had convinced him I could tell the difference between actual research and Dr. Google who is a bit of a quack, I had a great relationship with him. I phoned him up 9pm on a Saturday night once and said 'one of the girls isn't well, I reckon it's pyometra', to which he replied 'you'd better bring her in then hadn't you', I was there twenty minutes later, he took one look and said 'yup, pyo, well spotted'. Didn't even charge me an emergency fee.

What do I think of Insurance Cozie? Well I never offer different treatment to insured pet, I offer all the options to everyone.
A good insurance policy means that the client can choose the option that they are most comfortable without worrying about cost.
But with the introduction of RSAs list of preferred practices that restricts who we can refer clients to the insurance landscape is changing. I think in the near future they will gradually force all practices to conform to their charging schedules which are not necessarily in the best interests of the animal. There is already an example of this with RSA there are two techniques for a particular orthopaedic problem the more expensive one is vastly superior in treatment outcome, however, RSA will only pay for the cheaper inferior option. RSA say they are not determining treatment protocols.

I see the various statements in response to RSA's move - and very upset they sound even if it's couched in a professional manner.(Cold fury might possibly be more accurate.)

Are Royal Sun Alliance the main or a determining player in this field or is this move indicative of the industry's thinking as a whole do you reckon? (And RSA taking the lead.)

RSA have been trying to bring this in for the last current they are the only underwriters to do this. RSA underwrite Tescos and More Than's policies. It is tricky to know which way it is going to go, even in human healthcare there is not this level of approved hospitals.

Well if I were a vet, I'd be appalled at this seeming second guessing of my professional judgement. Yes it's still an immature sector and Yes there are clearly cost strains in it but with the overall cost of insurance, owners should really be better informed about the potential implications of the product they're buying, I reckon. At the moment, it may focus on a few expensive treatments but it sounds as if there's quite a slippery slope waiting there once the principle is established.