Extortionate Vets Bills

[Coco1379]

My three-and-a half year old cat has just had his annual check and vaccinations, and I’ve been told he has to have two molar teeth extracted - at a cost of £626. The after care medicine and painkillers cost £78 - but online they are £17. Many pet drugs are excessively expensive versions of human drugs, so why are vets charging so much? This is a terrific exploitation of pet lovers, and I see the Competition and Marketing Authority is revewing vet fees, as 60% of the country’s vets are owned by 6 major conglomerations. Some online replies to this overcharging say say vets have to pay more for their drugs than the online costs, but if there is a large company owning so many practices, they should be able to offer economies of scale purchases. When I queried the cost the receptionist said she’d just had to pay £15 for a roll of disposable paper but £600+ for tooth extraction?
I know we have a higher standard of pet care now, but back in the day my cats never had vaccinations, only had flea treatment when needed, wandered in and out for basic cat food. We even treated abscesses with saline swabs and almost never saw a vet yet they all lived to a ripe old age.

Forgot to add medical waste disposal as well as general refuse to that list.

I am not a vet, so I am sure there are plenty more overheads I am unaware of.

@Kwasi you really think those costs are higher for a vet than a private GP?

And it would cost me less to buy human medicine equivalent than the animal medication.
With a prescription I can buy a course of antibiotics online for less than £9. Yet I paid £45 for antibiotics for a rabbit plus consultation fee. It is simply not true that we are being charged the going rate.

Online pharmacies can charge so much less than private vets because they can buy and store medication in bulk.

Nobody is forcing you to buy from the vet if you object so much.

You can’t compare the two. GPs aren’t operating, are they? They diagnose and perform minor procedures, therefore don’t require nearly as much equipment or waste collection. They don’t typically have as many staff, don’t pay nearly the same rates and don’t charge VAT.

Exactly.

And, children/babies aside, GP's generally don't need to worry about being bitten, scratched or peed on, or pooed on by the majority of their patients!

@fieldsofbutterflies Most vets are run by conglomerates who can buy in bulk. Antibiotics that can be used for many things is a very basic medication the surgery will be using every day. I would expect some mark up, but the mark up is taking the piss. It is profiteering. Because they know when you have your sick animal being examined you just want them treated as soon as possible. Not to have to wait for the delivery of the online medication.
They are blatantly profiteering, and it is not even the vet who sees the money. It is the private shareholders.

@Kwasi I have rabbits. The vet has less specialist equipment for rabbits than an ordinary GP has for humans.

And veterinary nurses are paid way less than human nurses.

But presumably your vet doesn't just see/treat rabbits? They have to have the medication in stock for pretty much every patient and eventuality, but online pharmacies don't.

But your vet has way more equipment in total than your GP because your GP only sees one species.

Why shouldn't vets make a profit? They're not charities

If you don't want to pay the costs associated with owning a pet, then don't get a pet.

@Kwasi Honestly it is nonsense.
Vets who cover farms charge way more reasonable fees and they treat a variety of species.

@fieldsofbutterflies Maybe read my comment again as you totally missed my point.

I've read your comment, I just completely disagree with it.

@fieldsofbutterflies your reply was did I expect vets to be charities and not make a profit?
When I had talked about the large rise of vets bills because they are run by conglomerates who are out to make money for shareholders. It is not about the costs of running a practice or the salaries, it is about profiteering. Independent vets are significantly cheaper. But there are now very few of them.

Real life examples of vets practices profiteering.

“My old cat, Bella, had plaque on her teeth. I was quoted about £900 for its removal, as they said she had to be asleep. We then went to France over the summer with our cat, and I decided to try my luck and saw a local vet there.
“They were not surprised actually by the £900 price, saying: ‘You know, it’s the UK, no wonder.’ It cost €33 to get rid of the plaque, no need for her to be put to sleep, the procedure lasted five minutes. It was unbelievable. The cat was not too bothered.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/08/they-have-you-over-a-barrel-the-uk-pet-owners-facing-staggering-vet-bills

Every business is out to make money, though, it's just independent vets don't have to worry about shareholders in the same way as the conglomerates, hence the lower prices.

We're very lucky to have access to an excellent independent vet but they only offer fairly basic care. Spays/neuters, minor injuries, biopsies, infections etc. Anything major (cruciate surgeries, cancer surgeries etc). are all referred out to the big "conglomerates" because they just don't have the equipment or space to be able to do that kind of procedure in-house.

There are pros and cons to both kind of practise.

I don't agree with animals who can not consent being given treatment like chemotherapy anyway.

Independent vets years ago used to give all the treatment my rabbits needed at a fraction of the cost. Now they refuse to do some treatments without an anaesthetic that used to be quickly done in surgery. I had to refuse treatment as I knew the rabbit would not survive an anaesthetic, it was too elderly. But the surgery version they used to do could have helped it to live longer.

And it is ridiculous to claim that conglomerate vets have to charge high fees for very basic treatments because they also do difficult operations. Just charge what it costs for the difficult operations, including the equipment. And frankly given the prices I think they do.

Did you read what I posted about a cat needing plaque removal quoted £900 in UK and 33 euros in France. Are French vet costs really so different?

Well, I never said anything about chemotherapy, I said cancer surgeries - as in, tumour removals, which are surprisingly common in older dogs.

And yes, I did read the article, but I would personally wonder about how efficient plaque removal can be in a cat that hasn't been anaesthetised. IMO, it's a bit like comparing the cost of a manual toothbrush with a deep clean performed by a hygienist.

I agree. That's how much health care would cost (at least) for humans if we didn't have an NHS. Vets also need to make a profit
I know the NHS is in a mess, but we are still v v lucky to have free health care.

Vet bills are not extortionate. People in the UK just have no idea how much medical care costs. I currently have a fractured tooth, NHS won't do anything except extract. It's going to cost me 1k to get it sorted privately.
As far as the cost of meds, vets are not allowed to prescribe human meds if there is a licensed equivalent for the species being treated, they have to prescribe the licensed product, that is not their choice.
You are always entitled to ask for a prescription instead but these cheap online pharmacies are the reason your vet bills are increasing, profit has to be made somewhere and unfortunately a lot of vets used to rely on heavy drug mark ups, that is no longer possible so prices will rise elsewhere. Saying all that £600 is quite cheap for an anaesthetic and dental surgery.

The charge from vets for a prescription is £21. They make it high to cancel out any saving.
And most medicines I use on rabbits are human medicines, they are just with the doses for rabbits.
A vet in one conglomerate once whispered to me to just use athletes cream. I went to Superdrug and bought it for a £1. The vet practice would have charged a lot.

@fieldsofbutterflies You are entitled to think the treatment would be better if the cat was anaesthetised. But in the UK owners have no choice to choose the much cheaper version.
This is exactly what I had with my rabbit who had to be put down. The treatment under anaesthetic may have been more thorough, but the rabbit would not have survived it. And no vet would do the treatment that used to be usual without anaesthetic.
Personally I think it is profiteering.

Owners always have a choice - vets can't force you to choose a particular method of treatment if you don't agree with it or can't afford it. You're always free to go elsewhere or do your own research - I actually treat plenty of issues with OTC treatment or "home remedies" without ever consulting a vet.

If the issue is that a particular treatment is no longer offered anywhere (as with your rabbit) then that's more of a "vets have to follow official guidance" issue rather than a money issue, surely?