View all veterinary jobs
Although the regulator says the changes should impose only limited administrative costs, VetSurgeon.org estimates that implementation may still run to several thousand pounds for some practices.
Under the reforms, practices will need to:
In total, the CMA package introduces more than a dozen new operational requirements for veterinary practices.
Practices will also have to pay a new levy to the RCVS to fund its expanded role running the price comparison service, estimated at £450-£550 annually, after a £150-£250 setup charge.
Once the Order is made — currently expected in September 2026 — most of the transparency measures will need to be implemented within three months by larger veterinary groups and six months by smaller practices.
More operational changes, such as written estimates, itemised billing and the new prescription rules, follow later, with smaller practices typically given up to 12 months to comply.
The final stage will see practices submitting data to the RCVS for its upgraded Find a Vet comparison platform once the system has been built.
Prescription fees will be capped at £21 for the first medicine prescribed in a consultation and £12.50 for each additional medicine, with both figures rising annually in line with CPI, and practices will need to assess the impact on their business model.
I don't see what the CMA would gain by saying the costs would be minimal. The government is normally in favour of corporate investment, so the fact that their report confirms they are overcharging shows how bad it is. Don't forget the reason the CMA is investigating in the first place is because the public were so concerned about the increasing prices.
The bottom line is the corporate groups were unable to provide sufficient evidence to justify the price increases. Therefore, the CMA has decided to put these regulations in place. If everything was above board, surely the corporates groups would have been able to provide this evidence? The vet profession has brought this on themselves by not regulating the corporate groups properly from the start. I kept saying the prices were ridiculous and it would erode public trust. This is the consequences.
Yes, of course the CMA says the costs will be minimal. They would, wouldn't they! When I sat down and calculated the time it would take a vet to go through the price list creating all the variables, and then get a developer to update the website, pay the new RCVS levy, implement new policies and so on and so on, I can see several thousand pounds worth, and there are a lot of ongoing administrational costs. In fact, a corporate will get most of it done centrally, I imagine, and the costs per practice will be lower for them. I am positive about the transparency of ownership measures. I think they are a good thing. I am negative about the price comparison website. I think it will be meaningless because it can take no account of skill, experience, bedside manner, and all the other rather more important ways in which people choose vets than the price of a vaccine. Not to mention that loss leaders will probably come into play. And at the end of it all, I don't think transparency, price lists etc address many of the other inflationary pressures, such as the march of science, society's changing relationship with risk, veterinary education, regulation, the refer-all culture, and so on, which apply to corporates and indies alike.
The CMA asked for evidence from the corporates to explain the price rises. The corporates failed to provide this evidence (see below). If they had good reasons for increasing the prices, surely they would provide this? But they can't. The last point is especially concerning: the corporates increase prices just because they think pet owners will not complain.
Second, we have not seen persuasive evidence of a strong link between LVG price increases and investments in quality, despite our requesting LVGs to provide this evidence.
In particular:
(i) We have not seen significant marketing from LVGs to reposition their services as offering higher quality at higher prices, or documents to support such a repositioning strategy.
(ii) We have not been provided with robust evidence from LVGs on their post-acquisition investments in capital or staff, and how these compare to investments that these practices would have made had they not been acquired.
(iii) While LVGs provided evidence of increases in remuneration per FTE (full-time equivalent) worker over time, these salary increases can, at most, explain around half of the price increases over time across LVGs, and we have not received well quantified evidence of other increases in costs. In any case, the changes in salaries are not unique to the LVGs and only the element of salaries (and other costs) that are higher for LVGs would be relevant for explaining the acquisition effects on price.
Third, we have seen internal documents from some LVGs that link price increases to an expectation that pet owners will not react by purchasing less or switching away. We have also seen internal documentary evidence regarding pricing strategies at LVGs that are based primarily on non-quality factors
Also, whilst not being a corporate fanboy, I should say that the CMA report only confirms its own calculation of excessive profits. The calculation is disputed. I understand CMA excess profit calculations were based on the return on money invested in buying up practices. But I also understand that for this, the CMA used its own estimate of what the corporates might have paid buying independent practices, when in fact, I think most people knew they were paying way way more. If they did, then the profit would be substantially lower.
Your opening paragraph says "Although the regulator says the changes should impose only limited administrative costs, VetSurgeon.org estimates that implementation may still run to several thousand pounds for some practices." The CMA has advised the costs will be minimal, yet you are trying to put a negative spin on the changes. I welcome anything which helps to stop overcharging. Your article, like most coming from the vet profession, is critical of the CMA's changes. But we really do need them as the corporates have ruined this profession. Also, your point about the independents does not really make sense, because as long as they are not overcharging and their profits are reasonable, these changes will not impact them. I don't see how putting prices on their websites will cause them ongoing costs? It's a one off task and then they can get back to their normal jobs.
Hi Emma Creasey - I don't understand how this article implies anything of the sort. All I've done is list the CMA's requirements. How does that suggest I support corporate groups, still less the idea of overcharging? For clarity, the point of this article is that these reforms place an added administrational (and cost) burden on ALL practices, regardless of whether they are independent or corporate. But in fact, it's a burden that I think will be felt harder by smaller independents. For the record, I am an ardent champion of the rich variety and choice that a thriving independent sector brings. I think it is undesirable that these reforms will likely have a greater impact on small independents.
The CMA report confirms that the profits are higher than they should be, even with running costs factored in. So even if these new measures do create some administrative costs, it's highly unlikely the practices will be running at a loss. As vets, our priority should be animal welfare, not making excessive profits for corporate groups and private equity firms. This article implies that you support the corporate groups overcharging the public, which is concerning.