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.
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.
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.