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.
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.
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