Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
Tonight on BBC1 @8pm.
Panorama Why are Vets fees so High...
- Thread starter Bo Diddley
- Start date
Been done by BBC Radio:
www.bbc.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk
K
You and Yours - Vets Inquiry, Floodmobile, Deer Demand - BBC Sounds
CMA vets investigation findings.
www.bbc.co.uk
Voice of the UK - Vets & pets: a fair deal? - BBC Sounds
5 Live listeners talk to Nicky Campbell.
www.bbc.co.uk
Voice of the UK - Are vets a rip-off? - BBC Sounds
5 Live listeners have their say with Nicky Campbell.
www.bbc.co.uk
You and Yours - Energy Bills, Used Car Finance and Vets - BBC Sounds
As we wait on news on energy bills, we ask what help is there for people struggling now.
www.bbc.co.uk
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Watching it now and it’s soft as shite
Why isn’t it talking about price gouging? Cartels ? Price fixing and setting targets based on unnecessary treatments ?
Why isn’t it talking about price gouging? Cartels ? Price fixing and setting targets based on unnecessary treatments ?
BBC wouldn't go hard on anything these days...
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Turns out it’s just a program telling folk to get real and swallow massive bills
If you can’t afford an mri then we have alternatives. Aye , put the dog down
Maybe it would be better to have independence and competition so maybe the mri would reach a minimum sustainable price instead
Crap program that addressed nothing
If you can’t afford an mri then we have alternatives. Aye , put the dog down
Maybe it would be better to have independence and competition so maybe the mri would reach a minimum sustainable price instead
Crap program that addressed nothing
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
Agreed 100%.. The BBC just slipped down a bit further in my very humble opinion.
Was there an interview with a vet describing all the current surgical advances, better diagnostics, effective drugs, greater use of better trained qualified nurses and then the vet saying they do everything for a couple of quid. A statement they made describing vets of 30 years ago that was actually from a different point in the interview?
Alex88
Well-Known Member
The problem is that the governing bodies (RCVS and also management within corporate bodies) demand that vets spend so much of their time doing admin and the like, which results in seriously reduced productivity. Does it improve clinical standards and patient care? Yes, possibly. But would animals all over the country benefit if vets could just vet more and keep costs down? Possibly, because more would be taken to vets for treatment if more affordable. Last week my employer, a big corporate, forced me to sit on my computer and do a 3 hour course on money laundering, and fraud in the workplace. It was a PowerPoint with videos that was so clever it knows if you skip the video, and prevents you moving to the next slide until you've watched it all. The bills that my customers are given have to cover my time on that. Today I spent 3 hours writing clinical notes about various cases, because the RCVS dictate that that's what I do. My customers had to pay for that too. Do either of these tasks really result in me being better able to look after my customers animals? No.
Alex88
Well-Known Member
It might be better for many customers, and their animals, if we didn't have those surgical advances, better diagnostics or effective drugs, if it meant that more people could still afford our services.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Pity more people weren’t more educated about what they can use from their own medicine cupboard
Plus we've had the triple ratchet of corporatisation, insurance and specialist referrals.
Historically a only a vet could own a practice. The vet would hire a junior assistant, train them up, retire and sell out to the assistant, giving them their pension fee.
The regulator changed the rules, I think in the 90s (heard something about one trigger being a vet dying and his wife wanted to be able to retain his practice), allowing non-vets to own a practice.
Corporates consider vets recession proof so invested. They had a turf war for market share, ultimately leading to them offering several times the traditional value of a practice- even 10x. They need to reclaim this plus pay for increased non-revenue generating staff like HR and area managers.
Can you blame older vets for retiring early as a result? No, but there are consequences. Many of the older vets also owned the freeholds and retained this whilst selling the business, gaining rental income to boost their payoff. This introduced another layer of cost. Again, can't blame them but it has consequences.
However, this meant that their assistants couldn't compete with practice prices, so ownership became out of reach. To advance in careers or salary, those assistant vets start looking to change jobs, moving elsewhere or locuming.
As a result of experienced vets retiring and somewhat experienced vets moving around more, younger vets got less training. Thus there was a deskilling of the front line.
Both in terms of clinical skills but also the principles and values of what being a Veterinary Surgeon stands for, not least as a self-regulating professional.
Along come insurance and specialism. Vets want to do the best for their patients and are afraid of being struck off because of a complaint (not helped when bosses pander to complaining/grumpy clients with refunds which encourage more complaints rather than telling them to take a hike). The vet can offer to do a procedure in house that they've little or no experience in, or if the animal is insured the vet can offer referral to a specialist with lots of experience. Guess what most vets' consciences lead them to suggest?
So they refer. This further deskills the front line as more and more cases which would historically be treated in first opinion practice are referred, so GP vets lose case exposure. And income. But they need paying.
Specialists want to offer more and more. Insurance provides a funding pot. Prices go up as the vets are doing more advanced procedures and treatments. Insurance costs follow suit.
Insurance companies don't want to pay out, so many policies develop coverage akin to the water holding capabilities of a sieve.
Corporates smell money so buy specialist referral centres. And pet crematoria. And online pharmacies. And develop their own generic versions of drugs which they demand their vets use preferentially (vets can and should stand firm against this BTW) but still charge a lot for. Corporates and many insurance companies also try to get vets to direct referrals to their own/preferred/approved specialist clinics- the former as company policy, the latter as a condition of cover.
GP vets have relatively few career development prospects. Thus many become locums as kt pays more per day and is more flexible. This leaves vacancies at practices. As a result, demand for locums increases so locum rates go up, so more vets go into locuming. This means practices have another excuse to raise prices.
At some point there is a cost of living issue, so people don't bring pets in as readily/frivolously. Thus corporates lay off vets, nurses and receptionists, ban locums and yet the middle management, HR chain and partners/shareholders seem to emerge unscathed.
This is without discussing the impact of legislation about authorising vet medicines in the UK or the OOH sector. Or the difference between where money generated is spent for locally owned businesses vs. large multinational corporates. Or the rise of vet nurses, and now ACAs who do what vet nurses used to as nurses want to do more and more of what vets do whilst concurrently claiming they 'don't want to be mini vets'- but all of whom need paying, as do receptionists, practice managers, regional mangers and more.
IMO the RCVS isn't interested in getting ahead of genuine issues until it's too late, as evidenced by CMA, and lives in a London bubble obsessed with how they appear/are composed compared to other regulators rather than remembering their roots as a vet led regulator over a self-regulating profession. Various of the issues had been flagged before by practicing vets/some Council members and dismissed.
Fortunately at the moment there is a bit of a resurgence of independent practices as it's much cheaper to start your own than buy one and the public often flock from corporates to independents.
However, with the loss of those old mentors to impart the skill, soul and spirit of being a vet, many younger vets have effectively been castrated from the idea that the buck stops with them so they can and should tell the corporates/employers to stick it when those corporates/employers try and steer the decisions vets make. Hopefully we'll get our balls back soon.
Historically a only a vet could own a practice. The vet would hire a junior assistant, train them up, retire and sell out to the assistant, giving them their pension fee.
The regulator changed the rules, I think in the 90s (heard something about one trigger being a vet dying and his wife wanted to be able to retain his practice), allowing non-vets to own a practice.
Corporates consider vets recession proof so invested. They had a turf war for market share, ultimately leading to them offering several times the traditional value of a practice- even 10x. They need to reclaim this plus pay for increased non-revenue generating staff like HR and area managers.
Can you blame older vets for retiring early as a result? No, but there are consequences. Many of the older vets also owned the freeholds and retained this whilst selling the business, gaining rental income to boost their payoff. This introduced another layer of cost. Again, can't blame them but it has consequences.
However, this meant that their assistants couldn't compete with practice prices, so ownership became out of reach. To advance in careers or salary, those assistant vets start looking to change jobs, moving elsewhere or locuming.
As a result of experienced vets retiring and somewhat experienced vets moving around more, younger vets got less training. Thus there was a deskilling of the front line.
Both in terms of clinical skills but also the principles and values of what being a Veterinary Surgeon stands for, not least as a self-regulating professional.
Along come insurance and specialism. Vets want to do the best for their patients and are afraid of being struck off because of a complaint (not helped when bosses pander to complaining/grumpy clients with refunds which encourage more complaints rather than telling them to take a hike). The vet can offer to do a procedure in house that they've little or no experience in, or if the animal is insured the vet can offer referral to a specialist with lots of experience. Guess what most vets' consciences lead them to suggest?
So they refer. This further deskills the front line as more and more cases which would historically be treated in first opinion practice are referred, so GP vets lose case exposure. And income. But they need paying.
Specialists want to offer more and more. Insurance provides a funding pot. Prices go up as the vets are doing more advanced procedures and treatments. Insurance costs follow suit.
Insurance companies don't want to pay out, so many policies develop coverage akin to the water holding capabilities of a sieve.
Corporates smell money so buy specialist referral centres. And pet crematoria. And online pharmacies. And develop their own generic versions of drugs which they demand their vets use preferentially (vets can and should stand firm against this BTW) but still charge a lot for. Corporates and many insurance companies also try to get vets to direct referrals to their own/preferred/approved specialist clinics- the former as company policy, the latter as a condition of cover.
GP vets have relatively few career development prospects. Thus many become locums as kt pays more per day and is more flexible. This leaves vacancies at practices. As a result, demand for locums increases so locum rates go up, so more vets go into locuming. This means practices have another excuse to raise prices.
At some point there is a cost of living issue, so people don't bring pets in as readily/frivolously. Thus corporates lay off vets, nurses and receptionists, ban locums and yet the middle management, HR chain and partners/shareholders seem to emerge unscathed.
This is without discussing the impact of legislation about authorising vet medicines in the UK or the OOH sector. Or the difference between where money generated is spent for locally owned businesses vs. large multinational corporates. Or the rise of vet nurses, and now ACAs who do what vet nurses used to as nurses want to do more and more of what vets do whilst concurrently claiming they 'don't want to be mini vets'- but all of whom need paying, as do receptionists, practice managers, regional mangers and more.
IMO the RCVS isn't interested in getting ahead of genuine issues until it's too late, as evidenced by CMA, and lives in a London bubble obsessed with how they appear/are composed compared to other regulators rather than remembering their roots as a vet led regulator over a self-regulating profession. Various of the issues had been flagged before by practicing vets/some Council members and dismissed.
Fortunately at the moment there is a bit of a resurgence of independent practices as it's much cheaper to start your own than buy one and the public often flock from corporates to independents.
However, with the loss of those old mentors to impart the skill, soul and spirit of being a vet, many younger vets have effectively been castrated from the idea that the buck stops with them so they can and should tell the corporates/employers to stick it when those corporates/employers try and steer the decisions vets make. Hopefully we'll get our balls back soon.
Yes although under current legislation, technically illegal for anyone other than a vet to diagnose or prescribe medicine/treatment beyond basic first aid.
Surely.you don't mean the BBC broadcast another programme which misleadingly edited footage?
NoIDeer
Well-Known Member
What a fantastic post, it would be great to have a local vet that just did basic vetting and charged accordingly again.
Whilst we all love dearly and care for our animals most of us are pragmatic and will let them go if the costs become untenable. The thing the corporates are doing is playing on the amount the punter is prepared to spend on fido before giving in.
I had a private MRI on my hip a few weeks ago it cost me less than £400 including the radiologists report. The cheapest a quick Google offers me for Fido is £1500. Yes I understand you cant tell a dog to stay still... Why so much and why is it available in the first place for every punter to feel guilty about not being able to afford??
Basic treatment is all most people need for their animals, the fancy stuff should be for humans and filter down when it is affordable.
UnframedDave
Well-Known Member
Just had my three dogs vaccinated against rabies in Spain, €87. Having the titration test carried out in France €99 each.
A European pet passport cost me less than 30 per dog. Health certificate in the UK has cost me between 80 and 150 per trip.
Insurance is never mentioned over there.
3 nights in "pet hospital" a couple of years ago, three times daily blood tests, medication, food, etc. €300. Nearly fell over, I was expecting well over a grand, again, no mention of insurance.
Service is better as well, although my vets at home are pretty good, they don't match the Spanish practice.
A European pet passport cost me less than 30 per dog. Health certificate in the UK has cost me between 80 and 150 per trip.
Insurance is never mentioned over there.
3 nights in "pet hospital" a couple of years ago, three times daily blood tests, medication, food, etc. €300. Nearly fell over, I was expecting well over a grand, again, no mention of insurance.
Service is better as well, although my vets at home are pretty good, they don't match the Spanish practice.
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
Forget about animal welfare... its all about predatory capitalism.
I don't for one moment deny the love pet owners have for the animal/s in their charge, but notwithstanding the right to spend whatever they wish on Vet services I can't help feeling an unease at such vast sums when humans expire in hospital corridors while awaiting a diagnosis of their malady.
K
There are some other factors too, Pet Passports in the UK used to be around £60 where I was but after Brexit we had to use Pet Passports as the EU froze us out of the scheme we helped develop and are probably the lowest risk country for. Most vets hate doing the pet health certificates, they take a lot longer than pet passports did plus higher risk of making a mistake and having an angry client potentially trying to take you to court for costs if they can't take their pet with them/cancel their holiday.
There are also other differences in costs to practices here vs. there which explains some of the price difference, such as materials/consumables, taxes, wages, rental rates.
When we were in the EU I was looking at whether it was cheaper for animals with a pet passport to travel to The Netherlands for a CT. Even including travel to the NL and an overnight stay, it was comparable to being referred for one over here.
Most people are pragmatic but we've had a bit of a perfect storm, plus various things from the regulator such as 'informed consent' which in itself is a good thing but often turns into 'give them all the possible options'. This plus the thankfully abandoned 'gold standard' push (replaced with the equally soundbitey but better phrased 'contextualised care'), often meant mamy vets felt that they had an obligation to push for more advanced and thus more expensive options.
I personally wouldn't take exception to it being available, just need to know when it's actually needed and have vets with the confidence to say 'let's wait' or similar - which is flipping scary if you make the wrong call, the clients kicks off and/or the regulator then gets involved.
However, prices have rocketed and it's really uncomfortable.
Colleagues I know near me get audited by their corporate and told off if they aren't billing things how the corporate wants (I locumed there a few years back and a few months later received a phone call where I was told that I hadn't billed properly on a few things and it had been flagged up, one example being where I hadn't charged anything when an animal had come in for a post op check which took me of about 10 seconds plus some niceties).
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
Wait until we have an insurance based health care system instead oh the NHS and we will be in the same situation.
Similar threads
